Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 4 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Hugh Bayley: What was the average central Government public sector borrowing requirement per household in the United Kingdom per year for (a) 1992 to 1997 and (b) 1997–98. [41672]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Over the years 1992–93 to 1996–97, the previous Government's borrowing averaged £1,500 per household. In 1997–98, under this Government, borrowing has averaged just £50 per household.

Mr. Bayley: May I remind the Chief Secretary of the pledge card, which promised that a Labour Government would set tough rules for Government borrowing and spending, and congratulate the Treasury on a pledge well kept? Borrowing at £1,500 per household per year over five years goes way beyond that necessary for the financial cycle. Does he agree that such borrowing under the Conservatives was deferred taxation, so when they were in power we had not only higher taxes, but higher deferred taxation?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government made a catastrophic misjudgment in the late 1980s when they misread the economic signals, and the economic miracle about which they used to boast became an economic disaster only two years later. That is a reason why borrowing averaged £1,500 per household in the previous Parliament.
In contrast, as my hon. Friend said, we made it clear that we would run public finances prudently. We have reduced borrowing, which now averages about £50 per household and, at the same time, have been able to redirect resources, because of tight control of public spending, into our priority areas—education and health.

He is right to draw attention to the promises that we made at the last election, and we shall deliver each and every one by the end of this Parliament.

Sir Sydney Chapman: If in, say, two years, the right hon. Gentleman perchance found that revenue exceeded expenditure, which was the case in two successive years under the previous Conservative Government, would he use the surplus to increase public expenditure or to reduce the PSBR?

Mr. Darling: What matters is what happens over the economic cycle, as the hon. Gentleman should know. We have made it clear that we are conducting economic affairs in such a way as to achieve long-term economic stability—something which the previous Government were, unfortunately, never able to deliver.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting borrowing and spending under control? However, I invite him to look again at the PSBR regulations, especially to allow the Post Office to borrow to invest, to enhance its competitiveness. At the same time, he may consider Newcastle airport, which also longs to borrow to invest, to enhance its competitiveness in the northern region.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Although the Government always keep the PSBR under review—indeed, we consider it almost every day, for various reasons—people must bear in mind the fact that borrowing is still borrowing and has to be paid for, no matter how it is classified. There is no easy solution to the problems to which he refers. Borrowing has to be serviced, and the Government must have regard to public exposure to borrowing, whether it is directly under the control of the Government or incurred by bodies over which we have less direct control, but for which we are, none the less, responsible.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the improved borrowing over which the Chief Secretary has presided make it rather absurd for the Government to continue to maintain under-investment in public services, and does it not place them in the embarrassing position of not fulfilling their pledges and causing the situation to deteriorate? When the right hon. Gentleman completes the comprehensive spending review, will he accept that, to deal with the crisis in the public services, he will have to find money for the current year as well as for the three following years?

Mr. Darling: Yes, we are moving towards the conclusion of our spending review. The hon. Gentleman should review his policies on taxation and spending. I have noticed over the past week that he is in favour of as much spending as possible on just about everything that he can get round to naming, but against any measure of taxation to pay for that spending. A policy of tax and spend is a statable case, but a policy of spend and spend without any means to pay for it is incredible. That is why the hon. Gentleman's party has no credibility whatever on those matters. I remind him that, this year, because we have strictly controlled public spending, we are not only reducing borrowing, but have been able to make £2.5 billion available for education and more than


£2 billion available for the health service. Those amounts would not have been available but for the change of Government. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest possible way, that he reflects on his own policies rather than complaining about ours, which are doing what the country wants to get sustainable long-term stability and good public services that we can afford.

Working Families Tax Credit

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What representations he has received on the working families tax credit. [41673]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The working families tax credit has been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations. It guarantees every working family an income for full-time work of at least £180 a week. No family with earnings below £220 a week will pay income tax.

Dr. Starkey: May I pass on to my right hon. Friend the positive feedback that I have received from families in my constituency about the working families tax credit proposals? I should like to share with him the situation of a constituent. The lady's husband had been unemployed for some time and decided to try to improve his work prospects by going to university. She went back to work as soon as her son was born, and she and her husband were caught in such a poverty trap that the stress contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. She is currently £4.50 a week worse off in work than she would be if she were on benefit. As a result of the Budget proposals, and especially the working families tax credit, she would be £21.75 a week better off in work than on benefit. She certainly values the Government's measures to help people such as her who are trying to improve the lives of their families through their own efforts. [Interruption.] That is in marked contrast to her experience under the previous Government.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is amazing that Opposition Members do not like hearing about people being better off as a result of changes to help working people. The working families tax credit reduces the number of people who are on the high marginal tax rate and eliminates the 100 per cent. plus marginal tax rate, which was so damaging to work incentives and created a poverty trap. At the same time, it will end the situation in which 500,000 people were receiving benefits and paying tax at the same time. That did nothing for the relief of poverty. The minimum wage that the Government will introduce, the child care tax credit, which will accompany the working families tax credit, and the reduction in national insurance will mean that many people such as my hon. Friend's constituent will be better off. That will be the result of the Budget and the Government's other measures.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Chancellor speaks as though those tax changes are here now. Will he tell the House and the country when they are to be introduced? When is the child care tax credit to come in?

The Secretary of State for Social Security has been out launching that yet again, and my constituents think they can claim it now.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be able to write to his constituents and tell them that the child care disregard is being improved this year and that the full child care tax credit will be introduced next year. Child benefit will rise next April, which is the time at which the minimum wage will be introduced. The combination of those measures will mean that people such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) will be up to £20 a week better off.

Ms Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West): Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the barriers that many of my constituents face in trying to move into employment is the fear that an increase in in-work benefits will be cancelled out by a reduction in other benefits, particularly housing benefit? Will he ensure that the welcome introduction of the working families tax credit is accompanied by very close working between the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and local authorities, so that claimants get a seamless service that ensures that they really are better off as they move into work?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Systematically, this Government intend to remove every barrier that prevents people who want to work from getting the benefit and opportunity of work. That is why we have our welfare-to-work programme, why we have abolished—housing benefit is affected by this—the 100 per cent. plus marginal tax rate that many poor people face, and why, at the same time, we shall continue to examine, including in our review of public expenditure and housing benefit, every barrier that prevents people from getting the benefit of work. Our aim is to make people better off for working and to ensure that everyone who wants to work has a contribution to make and is rewarded for it.

Exchange Rate Policy

Mr. Damian Green: What plans he has to stabilise the rate of sterling against the euro. [41674]

Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on his policy on the exchange rate. [41675]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on his exchange rate policy following the launch of the euro. [41679]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government's aim is for a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. The best contribution that the Government can make is to create the right conditions for economic stability. The Government have put in place policies to deliver that objective and are determined to avoid a return to boom and bust.

Mr. Green: I am sure that the Chancellor will have seen an excellent document from the European


Commission, which makes it clear that those countries that do not join economic and monetary union on 1 January next year will have to fulfil various criteria to qualify. One of them is
the observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the Exchange Rate Mechanism … for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
When does the Chancellor plan for that two-year period to start for this country? Will it be in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should rejoin the exchange rate mechanism, which his friends took us into in 1990, that is not the Government's intention—I make that absolutely clear. If he is suggesting that our policy should be for exchange rate stability, let me say that our aim is a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. That is the policy which we are pursuing and that is right for the British economic interest.

Mr. Syms: Given the recent economic report that 400,000 jobs may be lost in manufacturing over the next few years, the deterioration in the balance of payments, and the fact that, earlier this week, Nissan Europe said that it would not consider investing in Britain unless the value of sterling was between 10 and 20 per cent. lower, has not the Chancellor got the balance of his policies wrong, and is not new Labour bad for manufacturing, for exporters and for people with jobs in those industries?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman did not say that Nissan wants the Government to join the European currency, which is exactly the opposite of the policy of Conservative Members. He may have thought of his question when the pound was at DM3.10. Today, it is at DM2.86 and I remind the House that, when we came into power, it was at DM2.81. The rise in the pound over the past two years was almost entirely under the last Conservative Government.

Mr. Waterson: With a higher pound, higher interest rates and £20 billion worth of extra taxes, is the right hon. Gentleman at all surprised that manufacturing industry is in recession? Has he seen the Confederation of British Industry regional survey, which suggests that manufacturing output is falling in six regions and rising only in three?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to avoid asking a question about Europe. It may be because the Conservative party is in such disarray on the matter after this week's speech by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past few months, manufacturing employment has been rising, not falling, that the CBI, which he quotes, predicts that manufacturing output will rise this year and that that is in line with independent forecasts. He knows also that this Government's policy is to avoid a return to the situation that was created by the previous Government, when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost as a result of the failure of economic policy and of the creation of stop-go and boom-bust in the late 1980s. We are determined to avoid a return to that situation and to have a sensible policy on Europe. That cannot be said of Conservative Members.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Would not my right hon. Friend's task in managing the economy be

made much easier if he were to announce his intention to join economic and monetary union—without setting a date? Would that not lead to a reduction in interest rates, a more competitive pound and greater investment—all achievable almost at a stroke?

Mr. Brown: The one thing on which my right hon. Friend and I agree is that we need clarity of policy—something which the Opposition do not have. Our policy is very clear. We are, in principle, in favour of the single currency; we shall apply the five economic tests that are in the country's interests; and we shall make a recommendation, if we believe it right to do so, early in the next Parliament, subject to a referendum. That policy was set out in October and widely welcomed by business, and we shall continue to follow it.
The country cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition could announce a new policy against a single currency on Tuesday when he spoke in France, which the former Deputy Prime Minister has said is extreme and the former Chancellor has said makes the Conservatives unelectable.

Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the practical consequences of the start of the euro next year is likely to be that some smaller firms down the supply chain of multinationals that settle in euros will be required to bill in euros? Will he give assurances that the preparations that he and his colleagues have made, which have been so welcome compared to the previous Government's irresponsible approach, will continue, in order to ensure that all sectors of the economy, including the smaller firms, are fully prepared for the introduction of the euro?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We discussed exactly that issue with business at the meeting of the standing committee on preparations in the Treasury yesterday. The president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the president of the CBI, as well as the secretary of the British Bankers Association, were represented at that meeting to put exactly my hon. Friend's views about the need to help small and medium businesses make proper preparations. I should have thought that it would be agreed across the Floor of the House that business should be prepared for the advent of the euro.
We have decided on a course of action that will provide information and an opportunity for businesses' questions to be answered. A campaign of information will begin in June. We are determined that every business, large, medium and small, is properly informed about the implications of the euro. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that banks and other financial organisations are in a position to help. Preparations have been behind because the previous Government refused to take the necessary steps.

Ms Claire Ward: Do not the Opposition have a cheek, showing concern about manufacturing industry jobs, given the number that were lost when they were in government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we believe that there should be a sustainable and stable economy, manufacturing industry in my constituency is facing difficulties as a result of the high rate of sterling? One company, which conducts a large


amount of its work in exporting manufacturing components, is finding it particularly difficult to make ends meet. Will he assure companies in my constituency that undertake a great deal of exporting that we are considering the problems that they face, will be ensuring a stable economy and will be attempting to achieve some stability in sterling?

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that stability is what matters to industry. Creating a stable foundation and a platform of monetary and fiscal stability from which industry can build is an absolute pre-condition for this Government. That is why we made the Bank of England independent, have set a five-year deficit reduction plan and, for the first time, have a proper long-term fiscal and monetary framework. We are determined to avoid a return to the boom-bust, stop-go conditions of the late 1980s that lost 1 million manufacturing jobs. I should remind the House that, when the previous Conservative Government came to power, there were 7 million manufacturing jobs. When they left power, there were only 4 million. That is what they thought of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Peter Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman was an unqualified supporter of Britain's previous membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Can he explain to the House why he is now so opposed to Britain rejoining or shadowing the ERM?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek to blame membership of the exchange rate membership—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] They do not like it. The previous Government took us into the exchange rate mechanism, chose the rate that became unsustainable and caused our exit from the ERM in 1992. As for our policy on exchange rate stability, we are committed to a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. We believe that the basis of achieving that is sound economic policies and the avoidance of a return to the stop-go policies of the past. We shall not join the exchange rate mechanism—we have no intention of doing so. We shall make the decisions that are right for Britain.

Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor should realise that, every time he goes off into auto-rant instead of answering the question, he alienates thousands of people who listen to these exchanges. We should still like to know why he is opposed to membership of the ERM or shadowing of it, whereas he was an unconditional supporter of the ERM. Does not that reluctance to rejoin the ERM sit rather oddly beside his enthusiasm for the euro? Is it not a bit like being unwilling to paddle in the shallow end but willing to throw the pound in the deep end?
Does the Chancellor realise that the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) were taken from the treaty of Maastricht? They are a clear obligation to rejoin the ERM. The Chancellor's own supporters recognise that obligation. Mr. Duisenberg says that we have to join; the Bundesbank says that we have to join; Commissioner de Silguy says that we have to join; and the Commission says that we have to join. Are they all wrong?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded me not only that his Government took us into the ERM, and that he was Trade Secretary at the time—he was

supposed to be reporting to the Cabinet on its effect on manufacturing industry—but that his Government signed the Maastricht treaty. As for lectures on European economic policy from Conservative Members, it would be better if they were to tell us their real position. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement on Tuesday, saying that he would never join the euro or economic and monetary union. The next minute, we had a statement from the former Deputy Prime Minister, saying that that was an extreme position. We were then told by the former Chancellor that the position makes the Conservative party unelectable. May we be told the true position of the Conservative party? Is it in favour of a single currency, or is it against it?
The Government will pursue a stable and competitive exchange rate. That is the policy which we established when we came into power, and that is the policy which we shall pursue. Italy and Finland were not members of the exchange rate mechanism for two years, but have been accepted for membership of the euro. As for the Government's policy: we shall not join the ERM. I have made it absolutely clear.

Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor has still not answered the question of why he is opposed to renewed membership or shadowing of the ERM. Has he no reasons for his own policy?

Mr. Brown: We are pursuing the policy that is right for Britain. The policy that is right for Britain is a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know whether Conservative Members think that it is wrong to pursue a policy of a stable and competitive exchange rate, or whether they merely do not like such a policy being pursued—successfully—by a Labour Government. We shall succeed in the policy because we are determined to eliminate the stop-go policies and the instability that has caused so much damage in the past—the very instability that caused ERM membership under the Conservatives to be such a disaster for Britain.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I hope that the Chancellor will acknowledge that a pattern is developing in the Conservative party's attacks on the single currency, all in an attempt to undermine the launch of the euro. The shadow President of the Board of Trade has been saying that the Government should go out of their way to destabilise the euro. The Leader of the Opposition has been comparing the creation of the single currency to the creation of a Bosnia-style situation throughout Europe. Is it not crucial, whether we are in or out, that the euro is launched successfully? That is in our economic self-interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wholly exaggerated and unjustified attacks by the Conservative party could undermine to Britain's economic self-interest?

Mr. Brown: The first point that the Conservatives should explain is why their policy on the euro is disliked by almost all this country's major business leaders. Secondly, they should explain why even if the economic benefits of a single currency were proved to be clear and unambiguous, they would oppose it for ideological and doctrinal reasons. It is the Conservatives who must now explain, particularly after the remarks of the former


Deputy Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, their real policy on the euro and their economic policy for this country.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Richard Spring: If he will make a statement on future trends in the balance of payments. [41676]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): The balance of payments is forecast to record a deficit of 0.75 per cent. over the next two years.

Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we have just had the largest quarterly trade deficit for many years? Is not the turnaround in our current account in two years—a deterioration of £11 billion—a shocking indictment of the Government and their policies?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a deficit of 0.75 per cent. of gross domestic product is, historically, a low level. We need no lectures from the Opposition on that level—under their mismanagement of the economy, it rose to 4 per cent. of GDP, which is five times higher than the level that we are forecasting.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Are not the economic difficulties that our trading partners in Japan and south-east Asia experiencing bound to have an impact on the British balance of payments? If our reaction to that were to damage trade even further, and if similar actions were taken by our partners in the United States and Europe, would not the result be a downward spiral of economic activity that could affect the whole world, not least the economy of north-east England, which is so heavily dependent on the continuation of that trade?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct. What would most damage trade is the adoption of Opposition policies, particularly on economic and monetary union. Our policies are for long-term stability and steady growth. Manufacturing is forecast to grow—I point out to Conservative Members that these are the CBI's figures—from 1.3 to 2.5 per cent. and exports are forecast to grow from 3.5 to 4.5 per cent., which is healthy growth.

Tax and Mortgage Rate Changes

Mr. David Ruffley: If he will estimate the financial impact on a family on average earnings of tax and mortgage rate changes since 1 May 1997. [41678]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): As a result of the Budgets in July last year and in March, a family with two children on median income of £17,500 will see an increase in their disposable income, excluding housing costs, of about £260 a year from October 1999.
The impact on any family's housing costs would depend not only on interest rates, but on their accommodation, on the size of their mortgage and on other factors.

Mr. Ruffley: When will the Chief Secretary stop fiddling those figures and accept the calculations

independently arrived at by the House of Commons Library, which demonstrate that the average family is £1,000 a year worse off after the mortgage and tax rises under this Government?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that interest rates went up because of the previous Government's failure to take appropriate action when they knew that inflationary pressures were building in the economy. If he looks back over the 18 years of the Government that he supported, he will see that interest rates were in double figures for much of that time and mortgage rates were extremely high—far higher than under this Government.
We are determined to ensure stable economic conditions so that all families can have the long-term prosperity that they want. When the hon. Gentleman criticises us, he should reflect that, for much of the past 18 years, instability and high interest rates led to a record number of repossessions and we did not hear a single word of complaint from him then.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the EU proposals for the harmonisation of tax rates on income from savings, and the effect that they could have on families in this country, especially those paying lower rates of income tax?

Mr. Darling: I am aware that proposals have been published, but we have no intention of going down that road. For obvious reasons, we certainly would not do anything to disadvantage this country.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Does anybody seriously believe that the official family tax burden figures would have been suppressed if they had shown a fall since 1 May last year? Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the poorest households have been the hardest hit by the tax rises so far? Will he now guarantee that, by the next general election, the average family will face no higher a tax burden than they had on 1 May last year—yes or no?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is certainly trying to wear new clothes in expressing concern about poor people. He was one of those who fervently espoused the poll tax, which must have hit poor people more than any other measure introduced by the previous Government. I remind him that, as a result of Budget measures introduced by my right hon. Friend, including the working families tax credit, every working family will be guaranteed an income of at least £180 a week, no family earning less than £220 a week—half average earnings—will pay net income tax, and child benefit is being increased from next year by a record amount. We also reduced VAT on fuel, which helped poor people, as it helped everyone else.
All the measures that the Government have introduced have been geared not only to increasing work opportunities, especially for those who are either unemployed or on low incomes, but to ensuring that families, especially those on lower incomes, are helped. Not only did the Conservative Government do nothing about that, but, during their entire period in office, they could not have cared less about the plight of poor people.

Charities

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What changes he proposes to introduce in taxation policies in relation to charities. [41680]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): A review of charities taxation was announced in the July 1997 Budget. The contributions to the first phase of the review are currently being analysed and we expect to publish a consultation document in the next few weeks.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, at times, charities feel that they are raising money for taxation? The Government's response to the sale of the new version of "Candle in the Wind" and the Princess Di memorial fund showed that that they could respond positively. Does my hon. Friend agree that people want to see the money that they give to charity sales go to the charities and not to the Government?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government's decision to donate the VAT paid on the purchase of "Candle in the Wind" to the Princess Diana memorial fund was a unique gesture. However, he should also be aware of how much the Government value the contribution that charities make to our society. More than 3,500 submissions have been made to the review discussing the future tax relationship between charities and the Government, and the Government will ensure that it is a positive relationship, which is recognised in the contributions made.

Mr. Peter Brooke: What is the scale of concern in the Inland Revenue about loopholes in charities taxation?

Dawn Primarolo: The purpose of the review was to consider how to simplify the regime, and to provide a fairer and easier relationship between charities and the Government. It is considering both direct and indirect tax. VAT was of particular concern to charities, as were some of the reliefs on the borderline that cause problems and loopholes for others to exploit. Those are all very much part of the discussion, and will be included in the consultation document shortly to be published.

Single Currency

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the constitutional issues raised by possible British entry to a European single currency. [41681]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Sharing a common monetary policy with other member states represents a pooling of economic sovereignty, so we accept that there are important constitutional considerations. That is why the Government are intent on holding a referendum before Britain joins the single currency.
As the Chancellor pointed out on 27 October last year, the constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but not an overriding one—rather, it signifies that, for monetary union to be right for Britain, the economic benefits should

be clear and unambiguous. If a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right in principle to join. Given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday, it seems that, even if it were right for the British people for us to be part of a single currency, a future Conservative Government would not join it.

Mr. Bercow: Is the Economic Secretary aware of the statement made by the president of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, that within a single currency
it is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies"?
If that statement is vindicated by events, does the hon. Lady believe that the cession of sovereignty would represent a constitutional bar to Britain' s joining such a currency—yes or no?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman—if I may borrow a phrase from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—is getting rather excitable. Many people in different organisations make a variety of statements. Indeed, some Conservative Members have referred to other Conservative Members as dinosaurs who are out of date. The key element relating to fiscal policy is the principle in the treaty of co-ordination among national Governments, not the transfer of responsibilities to the centre. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should stop these parrot-like cries.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Does my hon. Friend believe that Britain's preparations for economic and monetary union were helped or hindered by crass and irresponsible speeches that referred to public disorder and civic unrest, or does she agree with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that, happily for Britain, such comments are speeches without audiences?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend make a valid point. It is notable that some Conservative Members have referred to the intemperate remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. Ironically, the confident attack on the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), as being unwilling to listen and hopelessly out of touch, came from a party which currently enjoys only 28 per cent. support in the opinion polls.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Economic Secretary for verifying the fact that there is, indeed, an important constitutional element to the question whether we should join the European single currency. Will she ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer includes that statement in any further comments that he may make on the matter, and that he does not continue to confine his criteria to economics?

Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was off choosing a new tie on 27 October, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his statement to the House that, although he recognised the constitutional issue, he did not regard it as an overriding objection to our joining a single currency.

Tax Rates

Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will assess the advantages of introducing lower taxation rates for those on lower incomes. [41682]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The introduction of lower tax rates will make those on lower incomes better off. The working families tax credit, together with the introduction—when it is economically right—of the 10p tax rate, will help those on lower incomes by allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend share my view that one of the most depressing features of our society is that some unemployed people with families want to work, but cannot afford to, because they would take home less than they receive on benefits? That is depressing not only for those people, but for the people who foot the benefits bill. Does she agree that the combination of the 10p tax rate, the new working families tax credit, changes to national insurance contributions and a national minimum wage will tackle the iniquitous poverty trap that was devised by the previous Government, and redress the situation whereby those on the lowest incomes pay a higher marginal rate of tax than those on the highest incomes?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. To the list of excellent policies that he identified, I would add the increase in child benefit, which is particularly helpful to families. As he knows, we inherited from the previous Government a situation whereby more than 500,000 families paid tax to the Inland Revenue while receiving family credit. The Labour Government's policy of reforming tax and benefits, as part of our welfare reform programme, is designed to ensure that people keep more of what they earn, have the chance to be lifted out of the poverty trap and can participate in the world of work on a decent wage.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Financial Secretary aware that she has the right to apply for a discretion under European law to levy reduced VAT rates on labour-intensive industries? That could be used to reduce VAT on repair and restoration work on churches and other historic buildings. Why has she decided not to apply for and exercise that discretion? Perhaps she can also explain why she does not sign her letters to parliamentary colleagues.

Dawn Primarolo: That is the first pro-European comment that we have heard from a Conservative Member, even if the assertion is incorrect. The Government are not pursuing the reduced rate on VAT, which was presented to Governments as an option to assist employment, because we believe that our welfare-to-work programme, the new deal, working families tax credit and the reforms that we are undertaking are the positive route to creating more jobs.
The hon. Lady does get her letters answered. Ministers give replies in exactly the way that Conservative Members did when they were in government. Perhaps she should concentrate a little more on dealing with those who

are unemployed and welcome the Government's new deal, instead of making silly points on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To return to the original question, might not lower taxes for those on lower incomes be assisted by higher taxes for those on higher incomes, in extra national insurance contributions if not in income tax? That may be felt to be a problem because of electoral pledges on income tax, but it is possible for Governments to be persuaded to change their position in line with public opinion, and it might be time for a "can pay, want to pay" campaign.

Dawn Primarolo: We must have fair taxes, and the high marginal rates on those on lower incomes that we inherited from the previous Government need to be tackled, to ensure that people make a contribution to public services through their taxes on a fair basis.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Financial Secretary accept that the combined effect of the tax changes of the past two Budgets has been to make the tax system as a whole more rather than less regressive? If she disputes that proposition, will she agree to publish promptly the Treasury statistical series, which has been discontinued, and which enabled us to see the combined effect of direct and indirect tax burdens?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not accept that proposition. The Government cut VAT on fuel, raised child benefit, introduced a windfall tax to help the unemployed and are introducing working families tax credit, with an element to assist child care. All those measures are helping precisely the households to which the question refers.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received on the impact of his proposals for ending retirement relief from capital gains tax. [41683]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): Treasury Ministers have received 40 such representations, most of which ask for retirement relief to be retained or to be phased out over a longer period. Many business people have warmly welcomed the introduction of the new business assets taper relief, which takes over from retirement relief.

Mr. Swayne: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the measure is regressive and amounts to a significant redistribution of income from the modestly-off to the wealthy, and that its effects are harshest on small business people who live above the shop and are approaching retirement—precisely the sort of people for whom Labour used to care? What will she do for those people, particularly in respect of the retrospective aspects of the tax?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. What a surprise! Taper relief is fairer. It will encourage long-term investment and reward entrepreneur investment. That is the Government's intention.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Financial Secretary confirm what is in her Finance Bill—


that the capital gains tax system announced in the Budget is more generous to those selling very large business assets after 10 years, and less generous to entrepreneurs who sell their small businesses because of the loss of retirement relief? It is a fat cat charter in line with the Labour party's new priorities. It is in the Bill now, but will she confirm our suspicion that a U-turn is in prospect? As the Finance Bill unravels in Standing Committee, the capital gains tax system is being shown to be unworkable, impractical and perverse. Will she confirm that this generosity to fat cats at the expense of small entrepreneurs is wrong and will be reversed?

Dawn Primarolo: What is perverse is that Conservative Members welcomed the announcement of capital gains tax reform in the Budget and now seek to reinterpret their words. The reform encourages long-term investment and rewards entrepreneurs, something which the right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do in office and which this Government intend to deliver.

Household Incomes (Statistics)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will review the quality of statistics relating to household incomes available in regions of low population density; and if he will make a statement. [41684]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government statistical service collects a wide range of statistics on household incomes, which are regularly kept under review.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Economic Secretary consider the difficulty of getting robust statistical data for constituencies such as mine in south-east Scotland? Sampling errors are significant in less populous areas. She follows these things carefully, so she will know that textiles, electronics and farming are all in decline in south-east Scotland. It is difficult to get a focus on what is happening because expenditure survey results are published only on a Scotland-wide basis. Some sub-regional statistics are susceptible to sampling errors. With the Office for National Statistics, will she consider doing finely targeted statistical surveys, even down to travel-to-work areas, so that policymakers trying to respond to the difficulties can be better informed?

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. In recognition of the need for better statistical data to support the Scottish Parliament, plans have been announced for a new Scottish household survey. It will be designed to provide a range of information on households in Scotland, including information on their incomes. Over two years, it will give estimates for each local authority area in Scotland. That may meet his point.

Sir Michael Spicer: If there is to be a review of sparsity data, will the hon. Lady ensure that there is fairness between England and Scotland? Will she take into account the fact that on most items of public spending, almost twice as much is spent per capita in Scotland as in England?

Mrs. Liddell: The job of the Office for National Statistics is to ensure that valid statistics of high integrity

are available for policymakers and others to reach decisions. As part of that, the ONS has recently published a Green Paper to ensure the integrity of the statistical service in response to our manifesto commitment during the general election. The hon. Gentleman may want to argue about the various levels of expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, but those levels are based on need.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What plans he has to ensure that there can be parliamentary scrutiny of his comprehensive spending review before the final results are published. [41685]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The results of the comprehensive spending review will be announced to Parliament for scrutiny and examination in the normal way. It will be for the usual channels to discuss the way in which the House debates those proposals at some point after the initial statement.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has suggested that pledges are not necessarily binding. Does the Chief Secretary recall his right hon. Friend the Chancellor making a pledge when in opposition that he had no spending plans that would require extra taxation? Yet since the election, there have been at least 17 tax rises based, presumably, on spending, so that is one broken pledge. After the comprehensive spending review is revealed, how many new tax rises will there be?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see what the Government propose after their spending review. I remind him that, unlike the previous Government, every promise that we made at the election has been kept and will be delivered on by the end of this Parliament. That is something which the Opposition could never claim because they misled people on tax and just about everything else, which is why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches in such reduced numbers.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend consider making Treasury economists available to the Opposition so that they can conduct their own comprehensive spending review? He may well have noticed that during the past month alone, amendments have been tabled to the Finance Bill and the Social Security Bill totalling more than £6 billion—a massive hole in public finances. Perhaps the Conservatives have been infected by the financial recklessness of their Liberal Democrat colleagues on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that it is just economic advice that the Conservative party is in need of. It is perfectly obvious that the Opposition—at least, the main Opposition party at present—are increasingly giving up any prospects for the future. Not only have they adopted a policy on Europe that many people, in particular business people, find absolutely incredible, but they have already demonstrated that they would be prepared to spend huge sums without giving us any indication about how they might finance that spending. Their antics and their policies are becoming more incredible by the day.

Mr. John Swinney: When the Chief Secretary contributes to the usual channels' discussion of


how the comprehensive spending review is to be considered by Parliament, will he support an initiative to give the departmental Select Committees the opportunity to look in detail at the Government's proposals, to ensure that any potential damage to existing public services from the review is aired in the full light of day before Parliament, through scrutiny in those Committees?

Mr. Darling: Select Committees are entirely independent of the Government, and it is up to them what they scrutinise and when. As always, the Government are happy to co-operate with anything that they want to do. I am not part of the usual channels, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I am sure that his representative in that department will ensure that whatever the Committees want to do to ensure that our spending plans and policy proposals are properly scrutinised is taken on board. The Government are moving towards the concluding stages of the review and, because we are determined to deliver our manifesto promises, we are happy to justify those promises to anyone, inside or outside this House, whenever they want.

Pensioners' Fuel Bills

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What representations he has received on his tax and benefit changes to reduce pensioners' fuel bills. [41687]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received 1,000 representations on pensioners' winter fuel bills. He will be aware that there has been widespread acceptance and endorsement of the measures that we have taken on that matter, which include the abolition of the gas levy, the reduction in value added tax to 5 per cent. for energy-saving materials and the reductions in other areas. Taken together with the £20 and £50 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for winter fuel bills last winter, that means that pensioners will be better off on their winter fuel bills alone by between £100 and £130.

Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on their measures so far to help pensioners with their fuel bills, in marked contrast to the policies of the previous Government. However, does he agree that it is important not only to help pensioners pay their bills, but to ensure that those bills are as small as possible in the first place? We need the Government to do as much as possible to keep those bills small through various measures. Will he join me in congratulating my authority, Gedling borough council, which recently launched a wide range of energy-saving initiatives to help pensioners in particular to stay in their own homes and keep their fuel bills low?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both counts. I would add that local authorities throughout the country are taking up the opportunity offered by the

reduction in VAT on energy-saving materials to do precisely what he said; I compliment Gedling local authority on doing so.

Mr. Nick Gibb: What is the Government's latest estimate of the cost of the tens of thousands of £10 and £20 cheques sent out in error, which will not be refunded to the Treasury?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to zero in on a narrow and irrelevant point—he should consider that there were 6 million communications, of which a small proportion fell into that category. Why does he not think of the 6 million pensioners who got the benefit, instead of trying to narrow in on a small and incidental administrative point?

Bank of England Reserve Requirements

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What plans his Department has to extend the use of Bank of England reserve requirements as an instrument of monetary policy. [41688]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): None.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The rate of inflation last May was 2.5 per cent., which was exactly in line with the previous Government's target; the rate of inflation today is 4 per cent., which is 1.5 percentage points above this Government's target. Do Treasury Ministers accept that it is their failure of fiscal policy, in particular increasing taxes twice in one year, which has caused the increase in inflation? Will they, instead of asking the Bank of England to write to them explaining the failure of monetary policy, write a letter to the Bank to explain their deeply flawed judgment on fiscal policy?

Mr. Robinson: None of that arises from the question, but I am quite happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman. We need no lectures from the Conservative party, whose Government saw inflation rise to 21 per cent. in 1980. Inflation will come down as our long-term policies for stability and growth prove to be correct, and we avoid the boom-and-bust economic policies that the previous Government went in for. We go for long-term policies because there is no quick fix. For the hon. Gentleman's information, the Bank of England has expressly ruled out using the reserve ratios as an instrument of monetary policy; it did so last August, as recorded in the report of that date at paragraph 63.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998
Social Security Act 1998
Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998
Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Act 1998

Fairness at Work

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government have published today the White Paper "Fairness at Work", which is a further landmark in our drive to create both a more prosperous and a fairer Britain.
Let no one doubt that, in the modern world, those two ambitions go hand in hand. Companies and organisations that succeed in today's and tomorrow's world need to address and to anticipate the needs of their customers. To do so, they must draw out, and draw on, the native ingenuity, the innovative ability and the creativity of every one of their work force. The prosperity and opportunity of each are bound up with the prosperity and opportunity of all.
Some of the issues that we address in the White Paper relate simply to human dignity and enshrine simple individual rights. To assure them is simple justice, but it is also good hard economic and industrial sense.
Our industrial policy rests on the three pillars of strong markets, underpinned by our Competition Bill, modern companies, promoted by the White Paper, and building an enterprising nation, which requires those steps among others.
The White Paper is set in the context of action that the Government have already taken to create a fresh balance of rights and responsibilities at work, including signing the social chapter, bringing in, for the first time, a national minimum wage, implementing the working time directive, simplifying procedures for check-off and restoring trade union membership rights at GCHQ. Those were all necessary steps, but they are not sufficient to create a new and better balance in the fast-changing world of work.
The White Paper looks to the future, not the past. There will be no going back to the days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing and the closed shop. We are setting out to foster and support a new culture in the workplace—a culture of partnership. That culture is already evident in many of our most successful and modern companies, but the framework of our existing law all too often undermines or runs clean counter to it.
We expect and anticipate that many of the matters that we address, where differences of interest or of emphasis may genuinely arise, will be settled voluntarily and without recourse to the law, but, if required, the law must be able practically and sensibly to provide peaceful means to resolve disputes if they arise.
The proposals we make fall broadly into three areas: rights for the individual, collective rights and the development of policies that are family friendly. We also propose further consultation on many issues relevant to changing patterns of work. Those changing patterns can underpin flexibility and competitiveness, but they are undermined by a lack either of security or of confidence. So, in a world of far more frequent job changes, employees who have qualified for protection are reluctant to lose it by changing jobs.
Therefore, we propose, first, to reduce the qualifying time for protection against unfair dismissal from two years to one. We also propose to remove the limit on compensation for unfair dismissal, so that people who are

unfairly dismissed can recover their full loss. That will end the anomaly whereby there is no limit on compensation for those unfairly dismissed on grounds of sex or race, but those dismissed for other reasons can at present be awarded only a maximum of £12,000. We also intend to index link other statutory employment awards and payments in future.
We propose, too, to consult business and others on whether—and, if so, what—changes are needed to the law on short-term and zero-hours contracts. Contract work can provide useful flexibility to both employers and employees, and the Government would not wish to lose that flexibility, but poor employment practices discredit such arrangements and deter people from taking advantage of the flexibilities offered by contract work in other organisations.
Secondly, we also need to establish a framework that promotes constructive dialogue between employers and employees. That will include implementing the European works council directive on consultation arrangements at work by the end of next year. In many cases, such dialogue is best established by collective arrangements, which are often the preferred option of both employers and employees. In other cases, more informal consultative arrangements can be suitable.
I shall not attempt in this short statement to detail all the changes we propose, but central to the White Paper is the promise in our manifesto to legislate to enable employees to have a trade union recognised by their employer where the majority of the work force want it. The Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have worked together, and with the Government, to create as much common ground as possible on the practical issues surrounding such legislation.
The Government believe that mutually agreed arrangements for representation are the best way to proceed; but there are occasions when employees want to be represented by a trade union, but their employer will not agree. The Government believe that better and more effective relationships at work are fostered by having a clear procedure for the resolution of such disagreements, which is itself based on the starting point of voluntary agreement.
The Government propose that the law should require employers to recognise a union where the majority of those voting, and at least 40 per cent. of the eligible work force, are in favour of recognition. That will make it crystal clear that a vote for recognition enjoys genuine and widespread support among employees, and provides a sustainable basis for collective bargaining.
If there are issues on which the parties cannot agree, a restructured and reinforced Central Arbitration Committee will play a supervisory role—judging, for instance, whether the union has proposed a suitable bargaining unit, whether it has reasonable support within it, and whether a sufficient majority of employees support recognition.
When more than 50 per cent. of employees are union members, thus clearly demonstrating that they want to be represented by a union for collective bargaining, recognition will be automatic. There will be a similar procedure for derecognition, and the Government invite views on its operation. No new applications for recognition or derecognition will be considered until three years after a previous application.
The Government recognise that these arrangements may not suit the circumstances of small firms. The statutory procedures will not therefore apply to firms with 20 or fewer employees, although many small firms will no doubt recognise unions, as they do now.
Let me reiterate one vital point. The legal framework that we have proposed will come into play only when employers and employees cannot reach agreement on recognition; but, by ensuring that a clear procedure is in place and known from the outset of discussions, we believe that voluntary agreement is more likely to be achieved and industrial action to be avoided. Neither employers nor employees gain from the present arrangements, and the protracted disagreements that can occur only damage future relationships, whether a union is recognised or not.
The Government intend to take other collective measures—for instance, giving employees greater rights to complain of unfair dismissal if they are dismissed while on official strike, and a right for anyone to be accompanied by someone of their choice, who may be a trade union official, at grievance or disciplinary procedures.
Thirdly, we must recognise the special responsibilities of parents. We place great demands on them. Most need to work to give their children a secure life, but children need their parents' time, too, if family life and society are to be cohesive. The White Paper sets out policies that will enhance family life while making it easier for both men and women who work to avoid conflicts between their responsibilities at home and at work.
The Government will, for example, ensure that employees can take parental leave and reasonable time off for family emergencies, and will clarify the law on maternity rights, extending maternity leave to 18 weeks to match maternity pay, and provide new rights for adoptive parents. A number of those measures will flow from our implementing the European directive on parental rights, giving employees in Britain the same rights as their counterparts in the rest of Europe.
The White Paper sets out a broad agenda for legislative reform. The Government intend to proceed to implement these changes—in some cases after further consultation—at the earliest opportunity. The White Paper sets out the principles that the Government will follow in reforming employment law. It provides a comprehensive package of constructive change. It will take time to implement, and will undoubtedly require time and stability to settle into place. The Government regard the White Paper as a settlement for this full Parliament and do not propose further legislative changes in this area.
The White Paper will support the strong and evolving partnerships at work—partnerships that are needed to give British enterprise and the British economy a clear competitive edge. That edge comes from fulfilling the potential of our people and our country, and it is the only basis on which we can deliver prosperity and justice to all.

Mr. John Redwood: Once again, all the main measures in a Government White Paper were given to the press long before they were given to the House. Everyone knew what would be in the statement before the Secretary of State rose to her feet. I hope that she will explain how that happened, and why the press knew the detail—the exact detail—of what was in the White Paper.
The White Paper is a down payment on the bill the country will pay for trade union support of the Labour party. The unions gave more than £100 million to the Labour party during its Opposition years. Understandably, they now seek a return on their investment.
The right hon. Lady says that the White Paper is a final settlement for this Parliament, but the document makes it clear that even the crucial 40 per cent. threshold for ballots is subject to review. Will she tell us which of the following is true: will she give hope to Labour Members who do not think that the White Paper goes nearly far enough in helping the union cause, or will she tack back towards the Prime Minister and a little more towards industry by reassuring us that there will be no further significant changes after these measures have been put to the House?
I am sure that some Ministers will be grateful for the provisions on unfair dismissal. Many of them, facing dismissal in a few weeks—I am glad to see that one or two Ministers are laughing—will be pleased to find that they no longer have to serve two years before qualifying; there is some good news for them in the White Paper.
However, there is no good news in the measure for manufacturing industry. The last thing that manufacturing industry needs, as it grapples with the recession that this Government have created, is more costly regulation. The last thing that manufacturers need is more Government intervention to damage labour relations. The last thing that they need is the cost of a ballot on statutory recognition, half-charged to themselves.
The Institute of Directors commented today:
The idea that we have a business-friendly Government is rapidly going sour.
Meanwhile, Mr. Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union has threatened:
You cannot compromise on fundamental principles.
No amount of platitudes from the President of the Board of Trade can bridge that divide.
Why did the Government not let sleeping laws lie? Why have they not protected the fine inheritance of good labour relations—the best in western Europe—that we gave to them when we left office? It has taken Labour only one short year to set unions against business, and business against unions. The Government's very idea of partnership is phoney. They are not leaving the partners to come to voluntary agreements through free negotiation. They are forcing both sides to accept a deal that neither likes. That is not a partnership. It cannot bring peace and stability in the workplace.
The Opposition support freedom, choice and fairness for employees in the workplace. We will judge the detail of the proposals by their impact on good labour relations and the creation of more jobs. Our fear is that they will damage both.
Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us today what will be the total cost of these measures to business? How many jobs will be lost? Does she know that business organisations are already predicting job losses on the back of these measures and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why cannot more small firms be exempted from what will prove to be very onerous provisions?
The proposals begin a journey back to strife. They begin a journey back to the bad old days and back to the bad old ways. They will do further damage to


manufacturing, which is already damaged by high sterling and the recession that the Government have created. They demonstrate, if more demonstration were needed, that Labour is bad for business.

Mrs. Beckett: Not for the first time, I suppose that we could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to confuse himself or his colleagues with the facts. He demanded that I explain why there had been speculation in the press about some aspects of the package. No such speculation was in any way fostered or contributed to by myself or my right hon. and hon. Friends. The press will inevitably make guesses, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is much in the White Paper that the press did not foreshadow or get right. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the right hon. Gentleman himself demanded at the last DTI Question Time that I anticipate the White Paper by saying what was in it, so he does not have much right to complain about that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that when I say that the White Paper is the full settlement for this Parliament, that does not include the prospect of review. I made it plain in the statement, as the White Paper makes it plain, that it sets out clear principles, but we have also made clear our determination that legislation should be workable and practical. If it becomes apparent over time that elements of the legislation are impeding the resolution of disputes, the Government will be prepared to look again at those elements.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party stands for freedom and choice, but it is clear from what he said that even if 100 per cent. of employees in a workplace wished to be represented by a trade union and to have that trade union recognised, he would not support them. I do not call that supporting freedom and choice.
The conflict that the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in such apocalyptic terms is all too plainly just what he and his colleagues would like to see. Of course, as in so many other things, they are out of date and out of touch. The new culture in the workplace is a culture of constructive partnership, because employees and employers recognise that their interests demand that they work together. The Government's goal is to make the best practice in the best companies normal practice throughout the economy. That is what the White Paper sets out to do.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the President for her statement and congratulate her on introducing the 50 per cent. plus one automatic recognition rule. It will mean that a number of trade unionists across the country will immediately get the recognition to which they are entitled.
However, some of us are a little worried about 40 per cent. rules being applied anywhere. We have experience of that in Scotland, and we have had troubles as a consequence. We are heartened by the fact that the President has said that she is prepared to look at the operation of the 40 per cent. rule. Will she confirm when such a review will be put in place following the passage of legislation? Some hon. Members might be prepared to

give a fair wind to the 40 per cent. rule on the basis that there would be a review at an early date. Will the President help us in that regard?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He asks me to look some distance into the future. We are today at the White Paper stage. The legislation is not yet before the House, but my hon. Friend asks me to suggest when the Government might be prepared to review and, if there are problems, change it.
The Government are determined to introduce a framework of law in case disputes require to be taken to law—we hope and believe that that will be a rare occurrence. My hon. Friend will see that the White Paper's procedures for enforcing recognition, if a majority want it, always take us back to the voluntary agreement. Voluntary agreements are the whole thrust of the White Paper. However, if it becomes apparent—after some time and experience—that there is an impediment in some of the proceedings in the White Paper, we shall re-examine the matter. I fear that I cannot give my hon. Friend a clearer idea of the time scale.

Mr. David Chidgey: Liberal Democrat Members broadly welcome the President's proposals—particularly the fact that the emphasis is placed on looking forward rather than back to the past. She will know that the Liberal Democrats have long argued the case for treating the workplace as part of a stakeholder society.
Does the President agree that, in the context of developing her proposals for legislation, it is vital that all parties—the suppliers, manufacturers, customers, investors, employees and the local communities where the businesses are located—are persuaded to take ownership of the legislation?
I press the President a little further about individual rights, which are featured in her statement. Does she recognise the paramountcy of the individual in the proposals and their right to join or not to join a trade union? How will her proposals deal with the huge increase in the flexibility of labour, which is now a fact in our working society, with more and more workers finding that the key to their employability is their individual transportable intellectual skills? That is their property, which they take with them. How will her proposals marry those individual characteristics with modernising the traditional collective representation approach which has pervaded for so many years?
While I agree with the President that most claims for union recognition and collective representation are settled amicably—we should be pleased about that—does she agree that when recourse to law is required, that law must first establish a procedure that is not rigged or cumbersome, which, in itself, could only exacerbate a dispute?
Finally—[Interruption.] In response to the President's statement—which I think deserves a proper response—does she accept that, while we broadly welcome her proposals, which provide a platform for developing a package of measures that recognise the need for a more forward-looking approach to new partnerships with all stakeholders in the workplace, it is now important to discuss and scrutinise those proposals in order to develop legislation that actually works?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall pick up first the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. He is entirely right, and that is


absolutely the Government's wish. When he studies the White Paper at length, he will see that we refer throughout to our wish to consult and to take advice, especially on the specific detail of how the legislation will be implemented. It has long seemed to me that a major problem into which the Conservative party got itself in government was that it ceased, over a long period, to listen to the views of those outside the Government. We do not intend to repeat that mistake, especially in the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we could develop the partnership at work and make it responsive in different circumstances. A Government proposal that I did not flag up in the statement is that we shall make funds available to contribute to the training of managers and employee representatives, precisely to assist and develop partnerships at work.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it is clear in the White Paper that the Government recognise the rights of individuals to join or not to join a trade union. Of course we do, and we make that explicit. A difficulty in constructing the White Paper was achieving the balance of the sections on individual and collective rights, because some rights that come under the broad heading of collective rights are rights for individuals. We very much recognise the role of the individual and of an individual's skills.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about procedures not being cumbersome. We have sought to avoid that and have put in place clear time limits on procedures so that they cannot be dragged out unduly, to everyone's disadvantage. I repeat that the thrust of the White Paper is to drive back towards voluntary agreement, at every step.

Ms Ruth Kelly: May I warmly welcome the solid family-friendly policies in the White Paper, especially the three-month parental leave, for men and for women, whether they have a child or whether they choose to adopt a baby? I also welcome the protection from unfair dismissal, should people choose to exercise that right.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the latest count, more than 14,000 women were on maternity leave in the north-west of England? Will she join me in asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) whether he is prepared to tell any of those women whether that new right would be repealed under a Tory Government?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and his colleagues are clearly opposed to many of the measures in the White Paper; what is not clear is whether they would abolish the right to parental leave and whether they would go back on the reduction of the qualification period for unfair dismissal. It is far from clear to what extent the Conservative party would drive back the agreements that we propose to enshrine in law, but, as the right hon. Gentleman identified any change as being disadvantageous, my hon. Friend is entirely right to fear for our proposals, should the Conservative party be returned to power.

Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that I particularly appreciate her statement that

there will be no going back to the days of strikes without ballot, mass picketing and the closed shop? Does she recall the particular pleasure that I had of taking through the legislation that gave people the right to ballots before strikes? I have a good enough memory to remember that she and a considerable number of Labour Members voted strongly against it. May I say how pleased I am that there is to be no going back on that, and ask her whether she can give a clear assurance that recognition ballots will at all times be postal?

Mrs. Beckett: No. It would be possible for such a ballot to be conducted on the basis of a ballot at the place of work, if that is what is sought. [Interruption.] If there is a feeling that that would not be desirable and that there would be, for one reason or another, a desire for a postal ballot—obviously, all ballots would be secret—that, too, could be assured. We have allowed for either a workplace or a postal ballot, depending on choice and what is thought to be right.

Mr. King: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that brings me to my second point to him. He was careful to say that he welcomes our recognition that some of the changes in law that he made do not require to be changed in future. I hope that he will give us the assurance that he recognises that the pattern of change that the Government propose is right for today's and tomorrow's workplace and that he will support it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nature of the trade union laws passed by the previous Government is such that it has resulted in, for example, the National Union of Mineworkers not only not being recognised by private owners but not being able, in the industrial climate in many workplaces where the bosses rule, to have a basic pay increase throughout the 1990s? The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is totally out of touch with the present climate of opinion in which people recognise that those who work and provide the country's wealth have a right to proper trade union recognition.
Two or three areas in the White Paper are a bit dodgy, to say the least. First, we think that the 40 per cent. should not have been applied. If it had been applied in the referendum on a mayor for London it would not have passed the test. Secondly, the limit of 20 employees will mean that about 5 million workers will not be included in the measures. The measures on unfair dismissal should have taken us back to the pre-1979 position or to day one from work.

Mrs. Beckett: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has a long history of fighting on behalf of workers who face difficulties and, sometimes, exploitative and unfair employers. The 40 per cent. is a balanced judgment. There was certainly mutual agreement between the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress that it would not be right for recognition to be granted unless there was a serious body of support in the workplace for it—unless there was, in the phrase that is enshrined in industrial relations law and which has been practised for some time "sustainable support" for collective bargaining in the place of work.
It is generally and widely accepted that collective bargaining requires to be sustained by considerable support, and it becomes a matter of balancing that judgment. It seemed to the Government that the balance should be 40 per cent. One of the features of the Government's proposal on that judgment is that it is in everyone's interest to maximise turnout and the vote in the ballot. If an employer does not wish a union to be recognised it is in his interests to get as many employees as possible to vote. Similarly, it is in the interests of the trade union to get as many employees as possible to vote if it wishes for recognition. That seems to be the right balance. We are encouraging a genuine and as large as possible turnout of people expressing their view and that, after all, is the issue on which the legislation will be based. [Interruption.] I am reminded of the point that my hon. Friend made about small firms. Current employment legislation contains a criterion for small firms to be excluded on the ground that such legislation might have a particular impact on them. The definition has been set at the level of 20 employees or fewer, and it has been repeated in the legislation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the most important reasons for the improvement in our industrial relations during the 1980s and 1990s was the decline in the number, influence and power of trade unions? Anything that reverses that is a step back to the anarchy and strife of the 1970s. Does she further accept that her proposals are a serious infringement of the rights of employees who do not want union recognition in their businesses? Is that not an example of the rights of individuals being set aside at the behest of the right hon. Lady's paymasters?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a prominent member of one of the few remaining closed shops—not, I hasten to add, that I am in any way attacking lawyers—and benefits from a protection that he wishes to deny others. As for all the other rubbish that he came out with, being in government for too long has made him completely out of touch with the modern workplace.
In today's workplace, people fear not the overweening power of trade unions, but having no rights, no security and no confidence either that they can be sustained fairly in their place of work, or that they can find fresh employment, should they be unfortunate enough, for whatever reason, to lose their job. Those are the concerns which, in a variety of arenas, and including the White Paper, the Government are endeavouring to address.
As for all that stuff about how people will have things forced on them that they do not want, it will be a matter of choice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends are saying that even if 100 per cent. of employees in a place of work wish their trade union to be recognised, they would deny it to them. That is not freedom of choice.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I tempt the right hon. Lady away from the 40 per cent. rule and towards what I believe are her own natural instincts? For 20 years, I have watched Scottish politics being poisoned as a result of a fundamentally undemocratic 40 per cent. rule, where

those who did not vote were deemed to have voted in, or supported, one direction. It would give employers an incentive not to get people out to vote, but to let people stay at home. The Government did not ask for it in Scotland last year, they would not have dreamed of asking for it in Northern Ireland and they allowed a mayor of London to be created on 25 per cent. of the total electorate. How can it be that some of the largest, most progressive and successful companies in Scotland have made it clear that they would be happy with the principle of "One vote is enough in a democracy," but the Government have kowtowed to a few last ditchers in the CBI?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that there are many large and successful companies throughout the United Kingdom that believe that it is right and in their interests, as well as in those of their employees, to recognise trade unions. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so; indeed, this legislation encourages and supports them in that wish. The hon. Gentleman is simply mistaken in saying that this legislation contains incentives for people not to vote. That is not true.
The Government are clear, as are both the CBI and the TUC, what people want. I emphasise again that if it is not possible for voluntary agreement to be reached and if people are forced to fall back on the law—although we believe that, in the vast bulk of cases, they will not be—there will be every incentive for all the people involved to create the maximum interest in the ballot and to get the maximum expression of opinion among the work force. If that expression of opinion does result in a majority, with 40 per cent. of those who vote in that ballot being in favour, recognition will undoubtedly be secured. That is an important change.
It is crystal clear that we would not have got anything in this package from the Conservative party. Frankly, we would not have got it from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) either, as he would never be in a position to deliver it.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had only to listen to the litany of out-of-date, out-of-touch attitudes from the Conservative party to be reminded of what the voters rescued us from on 1 May last year? Nevertheless, she will be aware of the widespread unease among trade unionists that the formula for recognition seems to be markedly different from what we believed the manifesto said. Even so, the White Paper represents a major step forward in enhancing fairness at work. What is required now is an enthusiastic response from the business community in pursuing partnership to deal with the productivity gap that the Government have identified.

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government are seeking to foster such constructive partnership. In fact, one of the reasons for strongly promoting an atmosphere of voluntary partnership is precisely that it is the only way to secure productivity improvement. Indeed, it is the only way to secure economic prosperity.
On my right hon. Friend's first point, I can only repeat that the matter remains one of balance and judgment. I believe that no one thinks that a very small minority of people in a place of work voting in a ballot for recognition means that collective bargaining in that place of work


could be sustained. Owing to his long experience and expertise in these matters, my right hon. Friend will know that, when informal procedures operated in this area, there was a general broad judgment of custom and practice on the level of involvement in the union required to sustain collective bargaining. The Government are giving that statutory recognition.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much in the White Paper will be welcomed by the vast majority of people? It contains many great advances in family-friendly policy and other matters, but, as Mr. Eric Heffer, the former Member for Liverpool, Walton, once said over a document called "In Place of Strife", it is a barrel of honey spoilt by a ha'porth of tar.
This ha'porth of tar comprises two things. First, if 39 per cent. of employees in a firm of 100 employees vote for recognition, two vote against and the rest do not vote, there would be no recognition.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend spoke about simple justice and human dignity, but if one works in a firm of 21 people, the union is recognised, whereas if one works in a firm of 19, the union is not. My right hon. Friend has striven very hard, but even her figure of 40 per cent. does not meet the 33.33 per cent. that ACAS and others recognised in the past—and that was too high.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for some of his supportive words. All I can say to him is that, of course, whatever the threshold or the ballot result, a result will not be reached when a firm comes in at one below or two below. That would apply whatever the test or the nature of the test. The matter is one of balance and of judgment. In the overall framework of the package that the Government have proposed and in considering how such issues will be decided, we have tried to set the balance where we think it is right, workable and demonstrates serious and substantial support for collective bargaining.
The level of 20 employees has been enshrined in legislation as a point at which there is a difference in the structure of the workplace and the ease with which these matters can be decided. However, if some dispute or difficulty should arise in workplaces with fewer than 20 employees, particularly if a person is a trade union member—this is partly what I meant when I said to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that, although some of the provisions are in the context of collective rights, they are rights for the individual—that individual trade union member will have the right to be accompanied by a trade union official should he or she wish to be so. I know that, from his experience, my hon. Friend recognises how important that is—perhaps far more than the threshold for very many employees of small companies.

Sir David Madel: In its 23 years of existence, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS—has made an enormous contribution to the improvement of industrial relations. Was it pressing for any or all of the reforms in the White Paper? Will the White Paper encourage more single-union

recognition agreements in manufacturing industry, since such agreements have also done much to improve industrial relations?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we have recently supported legislation from another place strengthening ACAS's roles and responsibilities. However, ACAS's responsibility is not to advise the Government on how we should develop policy but to help to administrate. The context of the work done by ACAS is to encourage voluntary resolution of difficulties and disputes, which is the exact context and thrust of the White Paper.
It is for employees to decide whether they wish to work in a single union. I do not think that it would be possible to say whether the legislation specifically promotes single or multi-union workplaces. Quite simply, it provides a framework within which decisions can be reached when a majority of employees, or a substantial number of employees, seek union recognition.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives lost the general election because they created a climate of fear in every workplace across the country, which cost them hundreds of thousands of votes? Despite the change of Government, there is still a great deal of fear in the workplace about sticking one's neck out, to try to form a union.
Although the White Paper states that it will be an offence to blacklist anyone who tries to join a union, is my right hon. Friend aware that—in these days of the Data Protection Bill, and the widespread use of computers networked across the country—it will be very difficult to prove blacklisting? Is she aware that people who stick out their neck in trying to go for the 40 per cent., and fail, can easily be made redundant, placed permanently on night shifts, moved to another part of the country, or have other sanctions, which can be very difficult to prove, used against them? Will she show some flexibility on the 40 per cent., and on the blacklisting provisions—to make them watertight?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters. With great respect, I tell him that, although blacklisting is not always easy to prove, the fact that it is now an offence to promote blacklisting will certainly make a substantial difference. It will also, correctly, be an offence to penalise anyone who campaigns either for or against union recognition. People will have the right to be protected against ill-treatment because of their actions either in their own cause or in advancing the cause of others.
As the legislation is considered, its detail will have to be explored to determine how effectively those rights can be protected. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government's enshrining of those protections in the law, for the first time, is an important step.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Secretary of State aware that she has taken a huge gamble with industrial relations, and therefore with prosperity in this country? Against the background of a secular and very welcome long-term fall in unemployment and an all-time low in industrial strife, does she not think that there is at least a strong risk that many of the measures


that she is proposing in the White Paper could jeopardise both of those positive factors, and therefore operate against prosperity in the medium to long term?

Mrs. Beckett: I recognise the concerns identified by the right hon. Gentleman. I simply tell him that I am not a gambler. The only thing that I ever gamble with is my life and my livelihood, by standing to be a Member of this place. He is profoundly mistaken in thinking that our package of measures represents a gamble. As I said earlier and now repeat: the Government are attempting to spread best practice in the workplace, so that it is normal practice.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find—as he has more freedom now to go about the countryside, inquiring about what is happening in the modern workplace—that all the most successful companies will be able very easily and very freely to operate within the framework of the law. The type of practices that we encourage and enshrine are those that they now pursue—which is partly why they are successful.

Mr. John McAllion: I warmly welcome most of what my right hon. Friend had to say today, but, as she has heard from other hon. Members, a 40 per cent. threshold denied Scotland a Parliament, which a majority voted for in 1979. Is she aware that, had such a threshold been applied in the Government's referendum in Scotland last year, our new Parliament would have been denied the right to vary the income tax rate, which was supported by 65 per cent. of voters? Does she understand that, in the vast majority of cases, 40 per cent. thresholds are designed specifically to create an insurmountable obstacle to those trying to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of a Labour Government is to provide not balance between the CBI and the TUC, but justice between the CBI and the TUC? The TUC has called the 40 per cent. threshold unreasonable and unworkable; I believe that it is also unjust and so do many of my hon. Friends. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that before she makes the mistake of writing that threshold into legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I always take seriously my hon. Friend's observations. I share his view that the Government's role is to provide justice, not between the CBI and the TUC, but in setting the framework of law for rights in the place of work. The Government do not believe that setting the threshold for those voting in favour at 40 per cent. creates an insurmountable obstacle. As I have said to other colleagues, we must consider the balance of the whole package. After all, that threshold is part of the final stage in procedures that will come into play only if voluntary agreement is not possible. I repeat that, at every step, the White Paper encourages and supports a move towards voluntary agreement.
The assessment of the bargaining unit in which the judgment is made, and the procedures to be followed for discussions and negotiations between employers and employees will focus on, support and encourage partnership.
My hon. Friend should take into account the fact that the Government recognise that there are occasions when the voice of employees is irrefutable, and there will be automatic representation where more than 50 per cent. of employees in a place of work are members. The overall balance of the package must be assessed. The Government believe that the balance is the right one to sustain collective bargaining, make practical and workable law and encourage the partnership to deliver competitiveness that we all want.

Mr. David Prior: In the Prime Minister's recent presidential tour of Japan, he drew attention to this country's excellent industrial relations and flexible labour market. Given the very high level of unemployment in most European economies, why is the President of the Board of Trade so slavishly following continental practice?

Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear. The hon. Gentleman does not know much about continental practice if he thinks that all our actions slavishly follow it. We are setting a fresh balance for the framework of industrial relations law—where it is necessary to resort to law—that reflects the modern workplace and partnership that so many of our most successful companies advocate and practise.

Mr. Ian Pearson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that good employers will welcome today's proposals on employee rights and have no problems with them? Does she agree that beating up on one's work force is not good management and is not good for Britain's economy? Will she assure the House that in the consultation process that follows, she will consult widely with small companies employing between 20 and 100 people to ensure that their interests are fully taken into account?

Mrs. Beckett: Apart from encouraging the use of voluntary measures to resolve difficulties, the White Paper throughout places emphasis on consultation, and I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. I am now closing the exchanges on the statement.
As there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber, may I make it clear that I have always believed, and acted according to the belief, that when Members wish to question a ministerial statement, they must remain in the Chamber to hear it. If they leave, they have not heard the full statement and it is a discourtesy to the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box.
I noticed today that Members on both sides rushed out to the Vote Office to get the statement and the White Paper. It is not the White Paper that is being questioned, but the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. The time will come to debate the White Paper. I shall not call Members who go out to the Vote Office and seek papers. I have their names, so they need not bother to stand, if that is their intention. We shall now have the business statement.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order after all statements.

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Madam Speaker: After we have finished the business statement.

Mr. Marshall: It is relevant, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: They are always relevant, but I am afraid that I am now taking the statement by the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business of the House. The House is, of course, in recess next week, but I should like to inform hon. Members of the business for the first week back after Whitsun.
MONDAY 1 JUNE—Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:
The Petroleum Bill [Lords].
The Audit Commission Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th allotted day).
There will be a debate entitled "The dangers of changing Britain's successful and fair electoral system" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 3 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second day).
THURSDAY 4 JUNE—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
Debate and motions on modernisation of the House of Commons.
FRIDAY 5 JUNE—Debate on Government support for sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—For three hours, conclusion of remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (third day).
THURSDAY 11 JUNE—Debate on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I am glad to hear that the House will have the opportunity on its return from the recess to debate the Registration of Political Parties Bill, and also that we shall have the opportunity to debate European matters, albeit on a motion for the Adjournment. It is especially welcome that the issues considered by the Modernisation Committee are to be debated, when we will have the benefit of hearing views on them expressed by all hon. Members.
The right hon. Lady has announced debates on the national lottery and sport for all. Will she arrange for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, before those debates take place, to make a statement to the House on his plans for the television coverage of major sporting events and to give his response to the views on listed sporting events of his own advisory panel?
No doubt the right hon. Lady will be hoping that I do not ask again for a debate in Government time on the national health service—but I intend to do so. I, in turn, hope that she will not reply that the Conservative Government held only one such debate during the previous Parliament. As she must know, that count omits all the debates on health legislation under the Conservative Government. That is a nice little argument thought up by researchers, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Leader of the House knows that yesterday the Prime Minister was finally forced to admit that he had broken an early election pledge, as hospital waiting lists have gone up—not down, as he promised this time last year they would. Will she therefore arrange for a debate in Government time on the national health service, so that Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box to explain that they have broken their own election promises—it is not something which they can blame on previous Governments—and that, despite the extra panic injections of cash into the NHS, their spending in the past year falls well short of the annual percentage increases achieved by successive Conservative Governments? Ministers may also want to say what they plan to do about the National Audit Office's alarming report on the difficulties that the health service is having in coping with the millennium bug.
I feel sure that the right hon. Lady will be aware that, as a result of the Foreign Secretary's refusal to respect the Standing Orders of the House on the powers of Select Committees to send for departmental papers, the Foreign Affairs Committee, with the support of hon. Members from all three main political parties, has today taken the unprecedented step of making a special report to the House—I have a copy here—enclosing its correspondence with the Foreign Secretary and asking for the views of the House. The Foreign Secretary's unacceptable behaviour towards the Foreign Affairs Committee raises profound issues concerning the conduct of all Select Committees and, indeed, of the House. What arrangements will the right hon. Lady make so that the House can give its views on the matter, as the Foreign Affairs Committee requested?

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has welcomed some of the debates that I have announced. Listed sporting events can be discussed during debates on the remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill, which she mentioned, at Question Time to the relevant Minister on Monday 1 June and during the specific debate. We must rely on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to choose when to make an announcement on the matter. He has certainly gone out of his way to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible have been consulted; their views will be taken into account before decisions are made.
The right hon. Lady asked me not to remind her that, under the Conservative Government, there was only one Government debate on the health service in so many years. Tuesday 2 June will be an Opposition day—if the Opposition felt that the issue was sufficiently important, they could have chosen to debate it then. The right hon. Lady accused the Government of panicking, but the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday, in reiterating our election pledge, that waiting lists would be reduced in the lifetime of this Government. He cited significant figures showing the extra money—£5 million every day—that the Government are spending over and above what the Conservative Government would have been spending had they remained in power.
On the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee that was issued today, the right hon. Lady is wrong to say that the Government are not respecting the Standing Orders of the House. She will know that, in writing to the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was a long-standing practice of all parties in government that telegrams should not be made public, as telegrams, like other classified documents, frequently contained frank and other sensitive reports of exchanges with other Governments, or with individuals, who expected their confidences to be respected. There is no point in the House pre-empting the independent inquiry that has been announced and whose findings will be made public.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House reflect further on the request that has been made to her about the Foreign Affairs Committee? Does she recognise that the opinions of hon. Members from all parties are represented in the Committee's majority view?
Will she also reflect on the general concern, which touches not only on Sierra Leone, but on the unfinished business in the wake of the Scott report? Is it not now clear, particularly in the light of the revelations about Mr. Jonathan Aitken in the press this morning, that the House must get to the bottom of a great deal more murky business relating to arms sales under the previous Government and, I regret to say, under the current Government, to Indonesia? Does it not now seem amazing that the former Prime Minister should have appointed Mr. Aitken as Minister for Defence Procurement, and is it not extraordinary that neither the former Prime Minister nor any of his associates have made a statement about this morning's revelations? Should we not recognise that, despite the valiant efforts of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the House needs a special mechanism to monitor the sensitive question of arms sales?
We have for many years been able to have full confidence in the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) deal with sensitive issues relating to Government communications headquarters, MI5 and MI6. Surely we can develop a system whereby the House can have full confidence that these sensitive matters are under full parliamentary control.

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said about the report. Former Ministers and the revelations in the newspapers this morning are fortunately not matters for me.

Mr. Jim Marshall: It is not my intention to raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, since I believe that you are aware that, in a blink of one of your eyelids, an hon. Member scurried out and scurried in with copies of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade.

Madam Speaker: For which he is now terribly sad.

Mr. Marshall: I can see the sadness in his face, Madam Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of the wide interest in the statement on the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work". Will that be debated in the very near future? Looking further ahead, when the detailed legislation is introduced, will the two figures, dealing with the 40 per cent. threshold and the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees, be presented in such a way as to be debatable and amendable either in Committee or on Report?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that hon. Members are called entirely at your discretion, Madam Speaker, and I know that you exercise that discretion extremely well.
The White Paper was generally extremely well received in the House a few minutes ago. I understand how much interest there is, and that hon. Members will want to debate the proposals. My hon. Friend knows how crowded the parliamentary timetable is at the moment, and I do not expect he believes I can provide a time in the immediate or near future for a debate, but, of course, I will bear it in mind. When the legislation comes to be discussed, the selection of amendments is a matter for Madam Speaker, and that selection will determine what items are debated. I cannot pre-empt a decision on when the legislation will be introduced, because we do not say in advance what will be in any Queen's Speech.

Sir John Stanley: Is the Leader of the House aware that her answer on the Foreign Affairs Committee report completely missed the central point? Is she further aware that the Foreign Secretary's comment about the publication of telegrams is a red herring, as the central issue is the power of Select Committees to send for papers, which most certainly do not have to be published?

Mrs. Taylor: There are long-established practices in the House, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is suggesting that they should be changed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can we have a debate on the closure of jobcentres? There are two answers that I am not looking for: first, that I should apply for an Adjournment debate, because I fully intend to ask for such a debate on the threatened closure of jobcentres at Dronfield and Eckington in my constituency; and, secondly, that I should table a question for Employment questions on 11 June, because I intend to do that as well. We need a fully fledged debate on the problem of jobcentre closures and the apparent policy of what is known as rationalisation.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend anticipates my advice, but I can tell him that no decisions have been made. There

have been exhaustive consultations on the issue in his locality, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I know of his concerns. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is reminded of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters.

Mr. David Maclean: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1356?
[That this House notes with dismay reports that Sir Thomas Legg was forced to admit to the Committee of Public Accounts in 1993 that he had given an incorrect answer to the Committee when he stated that no judges had complained about cuts in legal aid when in fact such complaints had been received from both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, and suggested to the Committee that he did not see these protests as 'very germane'; believes he is therefore a wholly inappropriate person to hold the inquiry into the Arms to Sierra Leone fiasco; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to replace Sir Thomas Legg with a High Court Judge and to hold the inquiry in public.]
Will the right hon. Lady now acknowledge that the Government are steeped in hypocrisy, as is apparent when one contrasts their handling the BSE inquiry and the Cookie cover-up inquiry? Has she noticed that the BSE inquiry has an independent judge and meets in public, hearing evidence from all sides designed to get at the facts, while the Thomas Legg inquiry involves a Whitehall insider meeting in private and is designed to cover up the truth?

Mrs. Taylor: I totally reject what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, Sir Thomas Legg is heading the inquiry. The shadow Foreign Secretary has acknowledged his qualities. When the report is published, we will see just how shallow some of the allegations are. Conservative Members seem to forget that it is allegations that are spoken of, not facts. The inquiry is the best way forward.

Mr. John McDonnell: If there is not to be an early debate on the White Paper, may we have an early debate on industrial relations? That would enable us to highlight the concerns, particularly in west London, about the bitter dispute at the factory owned by Mr. G. K. Noon. My right hon. Friend may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and I raised the issue of the dispute several weeks ago. There was cross-party agreement that management and unions should come together. I facilitated such a meeting and Mr. Noon agreed to give the union the right of representation. Unfortunately, yesterday he resiled from that agreement and has disciplined a senior shop steward. We would like to expose such mendacity and intimidation in a debate on industrial relations.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I am afraid that I cannot find Government time in the near future to explore the issue that concerns him and, no doubt, his constituents. His best course may be to apply for an Adjournment debate.

Sir Sydney Chapman: As Britain is a signatory to the Ottawa treaty, which, as the right hon.


Lady knows, contains provisions on banning of land mines, land mine clearance and the rehabilitation of land mine victims, does she think that legislation is necessary in the UK Parliament to give effect to its provisions? If so, may we have her assurance that such legislation will be introduced sooner rather than later—if possible, before the end of this parliamentary Session, given that its provisions are presumably uncontentious?

Mrs. Taylor: I have previously said at business questions that I am very sympathetic to the Ottawa convention and understand the need to ratify it as soon as possible. We signed it in December and want to ratify it as quickly as possible, but we have to do so when there is parliamentary time. I hope that there will be much support for such a move. Such measures can never be guaranteed an easy passage, but we are looking to make progress on the issue.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1237 on motor neurone disease?
[That this House welcomes the launch of Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Week on 25th April and congratulates the Motor Neurone Disease Association and its 94 branches throughout the UK for its work in caring for people affected by this uniquely rapid terminal disease; notes that there is no cure and no known cause of the disease, from which one person dies in the UK every eight hours; further notes that the association has chosen the theme of Racing Against Time for Awareness Week to reflect the fact that the speed of progression of the disease from diagnosis to death poses a major challenge to health, social service and social security providers; further notes that because of a failure by statutory providers to prioritise MND adequately, people with MND often do not access appropriate support and services rapidly enough; and further calls on Her Majesty's Government to take into account the unique nature of motor neurone disease in its health, social service and social security policy reforms and specifically to ensure that MND sufferers in receipt of lifetime awards are not subjected to detailed interview under the Benefit Integrity Project.]
The motion has been signed by 69 Members, and states, in essence, that three people a day die from the disease and that not enough of the sufferers get the care that they need quickly enough.
I received a faxed statement today from the Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust which states that funding for its motor neurone care facility is being withdrawn. The facility has operated since 1993, is internationally renowned and gives care and support to the people who are suffering most. Could the right hon. Lady bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health? On a day when we have had appalling news about the national health service, to think that a care facility that is doing so much good work for so many people in the Preston area could be withdrawn is a scandal. I have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to intervene. Will she do all that she can to bring it to the attention of her colleagues?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know about the circumstances that apply in Preston, but I know of the good work of the

Motor Neurone Disease Association in supporting sufferers and in research. The hon. Gentleman asked me to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am certainly willing to do so. I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate, but he may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Christopher Chope: When we discuss modernisation of the House, will the right hon. Lady have regard to the need for the Government to modernise their approach to treating Members? Is it not unacceptable that the Secretary of State for Social Security, having received a letter from me on behalf of a constituent in desperate financial difficulties back in December, responded only today, some five months later, despite numerous reminders? Is it not also unacceptable that, on two separate occasions in recent weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has promised to deliver documents to the House within a specified time scale and failed to deliver them? Only today has she produced the final national road traffic forecasts background papers that were originally promised last October. When will we get the much-delayed White Paper on integrated transport?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a series of issues. I was not aware of any of the problems on documents to which he referred, because he has not mentioned them to me. I hope that we will see the transport White Paper in the not-too-distant future. On answers to questions and letters, he may not have been here yesterday when I informed the House of the action that the Cabinet Secretary and I have taken on the matter.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My question follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). The right hon. Lady told the House on Monday that she had written to her colleagues at the end of March about their appalling service to Members of Parliament in responding to letters. What response has she had—or is she, like us, still waiting for a reply?

Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman where he was on Monday when he missed a question to me on this issue. As one who has followed the issue, he knows that we are monitoring the situation. Some Departments have had a vast increase in the number of letters that they receive. We are taking steps to ensure that full replies are given as soon as possible.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the nuclear tests carried out by the Government of India, to give the House the opportunity to express its views in the strongest way possible about the further proliferation of nuclear tests?

Mrs. Taylor: We had a statement on that. I think that there is much concern among all hon. Members about the action that India took. I understand why hon. Members would like time to debate it further. I am afraid that I cannot see the prospect in Government time in the near future. That does not mean that all hon. Members are not very concerned about what has happened.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can we have a debate on the relationship between the House of


Commons and the Administration? I ask because there is an increasing perception that Ministers are completely failing even to attempt to answer questions, oral or written. I cannot judge whether it is a case of idleness or of evasiveness, but, whatever the reason, it is becoming a serious problem. I hope that the you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker will take an interest in it. The matter must be dealt with openly because it is becoming a scandal. Perhaps the answer is to set up a traditionalisation committee to get back to old standards instead of inventing new ones.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is so concerned because he does not like the fact that it is Labour Members who are answering the questions. He had many years in government and was an expert at deciding what information he would give. He is suffering from selective amnesia.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I press again for a debate on how magistrates courts are organised, following the growing concern in Derbyshire about the proposed closure of Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock magistrates courts? That will mean long journeys for my constituents to get access to local courts. If local papers cannot report what is going on in the courts, justice will suffer.

Mrs. Taylor: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about those issues, which is shared by other hon. Members who represent that part of the country. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised that matter in the spring Adjournment debate yesterday morning. I promised then to draw Ministers' attention to the remarks, and will add the hon. Gentleman's remarks this afternoon.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Leader of the House is unwilling to have a debate on the health service in general, will she at least arrange for a debate on the national health service White Paper, as more than five months have gone by since it was published and there have been no opportunities to debate it? The widespread concern among general practitioners about the Government's proposals for primary care groups could then be aired in the House. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the habit of presenting health service policies without providing an opportunity for debate is becoming chronic?

Mrs. Taylor: The White Paper made clear our commitment to putting family doctors and community nurses in the driving seat in shaping local health services in the future. There is a general welcome for our approach. I certainly do not rule out a debate on the health service. Indeed, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that I would very much like to be able to find time for such a debate around the 50th anniversary. At the moment, the timetable is extremely congested and there simply is not time for it. If the Opposition thought that the matter was of sufficiently high priority, they would have opted for a debate on it the Tuesday after we come back, which is an Opposition day.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early statement by the President of

the Board of Trade on a subject that was not significantly covered in her remarks this afternoon, the European Commission's proposal for works councils in Britain and elsewhere in the European Union? Is the right hon. Lady aware that on 9 November, on the BBC's "On the Record", when asked what she would do if the European Commission persisted with proposals for works councils in Britain in companies with as few as 50 employees, the President of the Board of Trade limply replied, "Well …. er … we shall see how things go." Are we not owed a statement of intent by the President of the Board of Trade or a simple admission of impotence?

Mrs. Taylor: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is frustrated that he could not ask a question of the President of the Board of Trade earlier. My right hon. Friend dealt with the issue extremely well, and I see no need for another statement.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, when a decision is reached on the channel tunnel rail link, the announcement will be made to the House and there will be a statement? I understand that a conclusion has almost been reached on what is a matter of great importance to my constituents and those of many other hon. Members—and particularly to those of us who feel that the link should either be completed in its entirety or not at all.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members about that issue. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has kept the House informed of developments. London and Continental Railways has given him its revised proposals, and discussions between the company and Government are continuing. My right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her curtly dismissive replies to questions on the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee? May I remind her that it is, indeed, a first special report? Is she aware that the Clerk's letter to the Foreign Secretary pointed out that there is a precedent for making the documents requested available? It dates from 1982 when another party was in office—I will not remind her which. Also, there was no request for the documents to be made public; the request was that they be made available to the Committee. Does she really think it appropriate that Sir Thomas Legg should be able to see documents to which Privy Councillors sitting in this House are denied access? Will she please reconsider her answer and also address herself to the final question of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), which referred to the final sentence of the report:
The views of the House are sought.
What arrangements does she propose to take to ascertain the views of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: The usual arrangements will apply. The Foreign Secretary has pointed out the difficulties that could arise if the long-standing practice was not applied.


Also, we are in an unusual situation in that an independent inquiry is being conducted into these matters. We should not try to second-guess the outcome of that inquiry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you or Madam Speaker could make a statement to remind the House of the rules about whether hon. Members are allowed to ask particular questions if they have registered an interest. Anyone reading today's Hansard and the Register of Members' Interest will see the link between trade union sponsorship and questions asked, very much off message, by Labour Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a procedure for dealing with such complaints, and at this time the Floor of the House is not the place to do it.

Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the reports in today's newspapers about the crisis in the nation's blood supply, the financial crisis within the National Blood Authority, and the news of the sacking of that authority's chief executive—which I heard this morning and which was not conveyed, to me at least, by ministerial letter—have you had a request from a Minister to make a statement to the House about that serious matter affecting the nation's blood supply and its management?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statements to be made on that subject.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could explain what are the usual arrangements when the views of the House are sought by a Select Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Leader of the House to respond in the way that she thinks fit.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the Leader of the House tell us—in what I thought was a spirit of helpfulness—that the usual arrangements would apply. It is not unreasonable to ask for the House, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be given guidance by the right hon. Lady as to what those arrangements are.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot believe that right hon. and hon. Members with experience of government do not know that the Government always respond to Select Committee reports.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order, and right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches have heard what has been said. This is becoming an extension of business questions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been a confusion between a Government's


response to a Select Committee report, which we all know about, and the Select Committee's opportunity to report. The Select Committee is a Committee of this House, set up by this House with a duty to report to it. When that Committee asks that this House advise it of its views, what opportunity has the House to do precisely that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have already made clear, those are simply requests for debates framed in different ways. It is for the Leader of the House to respond to those requests in the way that she deems fit. Now, perhaps, we can move to the main business.

Common Agricultural Policy

[Relevant documents: ECD No. 10934/97 relating to the common organisation in the market in beef and veal; ECD No. 13380/97 relating to agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the countryside; ECD No. 13111/97 relating to a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture; ECD No. 5102/98 relating to the second Commission report on the functioning of the ewe premium; ECD No. 5733/98 relating to the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco; ECD No. 5939/98 ADD 1, 2 and 3 relating to the prices for agricultural products ( 1998/99); ECD No. 6752/98 relating to measures and compensation relating to appreciable revaluations that affect farm incomes; and ECD No. 7072/98 relating to the granting of aid for the production of olive oil.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Also, Back-Bench Members' speeches will be limited to 10 minutes for this debate.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/98 relating to reform of the Common Market Organisations for beef, cereals and milk and for the development of rural development policy in the European Union, and the Second Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, 'CAP Reform: Agenda 2000' (HC 311) and the Government response thereto (HC 719); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the UK's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium-term prospect of benefits to developing countries.
The debate is about Agenda 2000 reform of the common agricultural policy and related matters, but no doubt other issues will arise during our exchanges. Reform of the CAP is an important issue, not only for farmers, but for consumers, taxpayers and the environment. The Government are determined to see progress in these matters—indeed, enlargement of the European Union to the east, and the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations make change essential, even inevitable. The Government's stance is generally shared by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Liberal Democrats, many consumer and environmental organisations, and, in some respects, I am pleased to say, by Her Majesty's official Opposition.
During our presidency, we have given the reform negotiations a powerful start. A special Agriculture Council in March launched the debate. The presidency then initiated intensive technical examination of the proposals in Brussels, which continues. In Newcastle upon Tyne last week, Agriculture Ministers from all member states held a thorough debate on the subject of livestock farming in environmentally fragile areas, such as our own less-favoured areas.
The Labour Government continue to take a lead in Europe, unlike the Conservatives, whose posturing while they were in government did untold damage to British


interests and to our farmers' interests. Judging by the speech by the Leader of the Opposition this week, they still have not learnt any lessons on Europe. We believe that it is better to influence the debate while it is happening, rather than stand on the sidelines sniping; only then can we ensure that the views of our country and of our farmers and rural communities are effectively represented.
A further discussion of the Commission's proposals at the Agriculture Council next week will enable initial conclusions to be drawn and impetus given to the continuing negotiating process. Our work provides a sound basis for agreement to be reached, probably in the first part of 1999. The Government have argued for reforms that will be less costly overall, which encourage a more competitive, sustainable agriculture, and which are fair to British farmers and enhance the rural environment and rural economy.
We have welcomed the Commission's general proposals. The proposed substantial cuts in support prices will save British consumers some £1 billion a year. They will encourage a more market-focused response from farmers and improve competitiveness on world markets. The proposed rural development regulation will create a welcome new framework for promoting agri-environmental measures and rural development. Farmers will receive compensation for the price cuts, and will benefit from the effective ending of compulsory set-aside.
However, the proposals do not meet all our concerns; nor do they go as far in some respects as we would wish. The initial costs of compensation payments are high, and the Commission has made no proposal for those payments to be time-limited, degressive and decoupled from production, as we believe they should be. It is also by no means clear that the proposals are sufficiently radical to permit successful enlargement of the European Union; nor might they be sufficient for the Union to avoid challenge in the forthcoming round of negotiations within the World Trade Organisation.

Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that it was Government policy not to stand on the sidelines but to be part of the debate while it was happening, but it was reported this morning that the Prime Minister told Mr. Rupert Murdoch that the Labour party would not commit itself either way to the single currency at the next general election. Is that true, and, if so, is that being part of the debate or standing on the sidelines?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not believe that that newspaper report is true; nor is it relevant to what I was saying. However, let me say that both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the Government's position on the single currency absolutely clear. Incidentally, our position on that matter is supported by the National Farmers Union, unlike that of the Conservative party.
To return to the subject of reform of the CAP, the proposed dairy price cuts are insufficient to enable milk quotas eventually to be abolished. We shall press hard for arrangements permitting a quota-free regime after 2006, although that is a desperately late time for the changes to

be made. In the meantime, I am not prepared to accept increases in milk quotas that discriminate against our efficient, competitive British dairy farmers, as the current Commission proposals would do.

Charlotte Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the devastation caused to dairy farmers in my constituency by bovine tuberculosis? Since January, there have been 46 new outbreaks, with farms closed down. Will he tell us what progress is being made on the implementation of Krebs and the identification of new hot spots, as that is crucial to dairy farmers in my patch?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises a matter which is important to dairy farmers and to the nation generally. We are aware of the outbreaks in dairy herds, although, fortunately, they remain at a relatively low level. We have given a clear statement of our acceptance of the principles of the Krebs report—an investigation quite properly set up by the previous Administration; and we have set up an expert group under Professor John Bourne to advise how matters may be taken forward in that respect. We shall move with all possible speed consistent with accepting and having available to us the best scientific advice, but we know that the problem is an urgent and serious one which affects many dairy farmers, and we shall act as quickly as possible.

Mr. Michael Jack: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of milk quotas, will he tell the House, in the light of his request to the Agriculture Council in respect of the 30 per cent. cut in intervention prices, what increase in milk quotas he will now press for in order to compensate our farmers?

Dr. Cunningham: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission proposals envisage a 2 per cent. across-the-board increase in milk quotas for those member states which "have mountainous areas". With that very phrase, six member states, including the United Kingdom, are totally excluded from the proposals, and I regard that as arbitrary and unacceptable. We have made our position absolutely clear and shall continue to oppose the proposal on that as well as other grounds.
We will not accept a ceiling on farmers' payments which is applied at EU level and therefore takes no account of this country's larger and more efficient farm structure. If there are to be ceilings, they must be a matter for member states and member states alone to decide. In that event, it would be logical for any savings to remain available to the member state to finance agri-environmental and rural development measures, and not, as is envisaged, for savings to be returned to the CAP general fund for redistribution.
Improving the rural environment is an important component of the reforms. Cutting support prices should bring environmental benefits in many areas—for example, where it leads to reduced use of agro-chemicals. The rural development regulation will form an important new environmental pillar of the CAP. It will be important to ensure that measures under that regulation are not limited to farm-based activities, but can be used to foster a wide range of rural development activities to enable rural communities to prosper.

Mr. Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the idea of reforming


the CAP in the direction of transferring subsidies towards rural development. In that context, can he say anything about the proposals, which we believe are being discussed in Whitehall, to restructure the Ministry of Agriculture to become a rural affairs Ministry of the sort that the Select Committee on Agriculture recommended?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but the answer is no; I cannot say more than I have said—that matters are being considered. However, ultimately, decisions on reorganisation of Whitehall responsibilities are determined by the Prime Minister. No such decision is about to be announced.
I return to changes in the CAP. The Government's policy is ultimately to phase out direct production-linked support, and use some of the savings to reinforce the new rural development pillar. We believe that that is the best, most cost-effective, way to secure further environmental benefits.
The negotiations on CAP reform will inevitably continue for some months before they reach conclusions. Throughout those negotiations, I shall press for reform in the interests of farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment. They are, of course—

Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No; I shall not give way at the moment.
There are many other important issues confronting British agriculture, both in Brussels and at home.
As everyone recognises, British farmers have been going through an especially difficult time, due principally to the strength of sterling and the continuing ban on the export of British beef. While acting within necessarily tight budgetary constraints, we continue to discuss these issues in partnership with farmers and their representatives, to ensure that the Government, wherever possible, can provide the best possible framework of policies to assist our farmers.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Dr. Cunningham: No; I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall say something about changes that we can make while discussion about CAP reform continues.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the subject of exchange rates?

Dr. Cunningham: No; I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment.
I know that specified risk material controls have had an especially heavy impact on the returns of our sheep farmers, and have caused them difficulties in the sale of cull ewes. Those difficulties have been brought to my attention by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I undertook to inquire into how we might help. As a result of the requirement for ewe carcases to be split

in abattoirs or cutting plants, and the spinal cord removed, French demand for whole carcases has been taken up by producers in other countries.
Following those representations from Liberal Democrat Members and other individual Members of Parliament, I and my officials have discussed with the French authorities whether they would agree to changes in that trade, and I have decided, since they have agreed, to amend our SRM regulations so that our producers may regain a share of that market. It will be necessary to continue to ensure that spinal cord is removed from the carcases before the meat is sold, but, by agreement and negotiation, we have reached a deal whereby that can be done in designated French abattoirs.
Depending on the outcome of the statutory consultation, which I am obliged to undertake, with interested organisations on our proposals to amend SRM rules, it should be possible for exports of whole ewe carcases—by which I mean ewe carcases from which the head has been removed—to resume this summer. I know that that will be welcome news to sheep farmers throughout the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I now discuss another aspect of negotiations, on an important measure—agrimonetary reform. An important negotiation we face now, and throughout the remainder of the year, concerns the new agrimonetary system needed to take account of the single currency. That will provide an opportunity to secure a more transparent system, less costly to taxpayers and consumers, and less complicated for business. At the same time, it will be important that the new arrangements are fair to all parties, whether or not their country is part of the single currency. We shall also want to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements avoids excessive shocks for farmers and others in related businesses.
In the meantime, at the April Agriculture Council meeting, we secured a continuation of the freeze, so that CAP payments will not, in the main, be affected by currency movements until the end of the year. I believe that that, too, is good news for our farmers, but, of course, there are difficult negotiations to conclude.

Mr. Leigh: Representations have been made to me, as a rural Member, about the strength of the pound, which is costing farmers £300 million a year. They have asked me to urge the Minister to press Brussels for the introduction of transitional compensation arrangements. Will he comment on that and reply to the National Farmers Union case on that point?

Dr. Cunningham: In so far as the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the transition to new agrimonetary arrangements, I have just mentioned them. I understand the justified concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and farmers. It is important that we get this matter right. As I have just assured the House, we shall do everything we possibly can in the negotiations to achieve that objective.
I shall now focus on the continuing problems caused to our livestock producers as a consequence of the BSE crisis and the beef ban. As we all know, that is a major issue for all our beef farmers, throughout the United Kingdom.
We have made an important breakthrough with the decision enabling beef to be exported from Northern Ireland under the export certified herds scheme. During


April, the European Commission's inspectors visited Northern Ireland. Earlier this week, they informed the Standing Veterinary Committee that they were largely content with the arrangements that they had seen were in place in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Commission intends next Wednesday, 27 May, to adopt a decision that would allow exports of beef from the Province to resume from 1 June. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is excellent news for Northern Ireland farmers, and for the Northern Irish economy as a whole.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I wonder whether, in that context, the right hon. Gentleman would comment on his progress on the date-based scheme for beef cattle to be exported.

Dr. Cunningham: The next paragraph of my speech deals with that. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a reasonable crystal ball, as well as farm management expertise.
We have made good progress on negotiations on the date-based export scheme, which I recognise is of far greater significance to our farmers than the progress made in relation to Northern Ireland. However important it was to solve the Northern Ireland problem, the date-based scheme will apply to all animals born after 1 August 1996, and apply throughout the United Kingdom. The scheme would permit the export of meat from animals born after that date—the date from which we believe there was no risk from contaminated feed.
The scheme that we have proposed has strict rules, designed to take account of the only known source of infection after that date—maternal transmission—and we have proposed an offspring cull as part of the proposals. My officials and I have been working very, very closely with the Commission on this. As a result of our most recent negotiations, we expect a proposal on the lines that we have suggested to be tabled for discussion by the Commission very soon.
I would not want to mislead the House: subsequent negotiations on that proposal will not be easy—I have no illusions about that. We finally secured support for the Northern Ireland scheme by 11 votes to two, with two abstentions. I should be happy if we could repeat that outcome, but I believe that, this time, it may be more difficult. Nevertheless, we shall use all our endeavours to secure a positive result.
The scheme is soundly based and robust. It can be effectively managed. Our beef is more rigorously safeguarded than that produced anywhere else in the world. I am sure that our industrialists and farmers, and our meat industry, will do everything possible to comply with the scheme. They have suffered long and hard as a result of the BSE crisis and the export ban. I hope that the Government can count on the support of everyone in the beef industry, and in the House, in reaching the next important milestone in the lifting of the ban.

Mr. James Paice: I am sure that we all wish the Minister well in his efforts to get the date-based scheme into operation. On the assumption that he will sooner or later be successful, many farmers

are asking whether it will lead to an unwinding of the over-30-months scheme as new cattle come into the frame.

Dr. Cunningham: The OTMS is an important safeguard, and is strongly supported by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. One can see that, if the date-based scheme is accepted, it would seem logical that animals born after 1 August 1996 may not have to go into the OTMS. We may therefore see the beginning of the end of that scheme, but I stress "beginning". With the livestock sector as it is, animals will go into the OTMS for some considerable number of years.

Mr. David Maclean: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
I want to make it clear that I would have to secure the agreement of the Commission and of SEAC before I could make any such change to the scheme.

Mr. John Swinney: I want to go back to the Minister's point about securing agreement on the date-based scheme among our European partners. What will be the principal obstacles to persuading representatives of other countries that the features of the scheme are as strong as possible?

Dr. Cunningham: I can answer the hon. Gentleman with a single word—politics. There is no valid case on the basis of medical or veterinary science for preventing support for the scheme. I have said that repeatedly, not only in the House, but in the Council of Ministers. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to fulfil our obligations under the Florence terms and to ensure that our beef is safe to eat. I reiterate my firm belief that there are no safety, health or veterinary science grounds on which the scheme should not be accepted.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I will give way once more, to the right hon. Gentleman who is my constituency neighbour, but that is the lot.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I listened carefully when the Minister said that there might be circumstances once the date-based scheme is up and running in which it might be possible to eat away at the OTMS. Will he consider specialist beef herds, such as dexters, Galloways and others, in which there have been no—or very few—cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy? Perhaps they might be first in line.

Dr. Cunningham: The special arrangements of the beef assurance scheme are already there if producers want to take advantage of them. It was introduced by the previous Administration, and I am disappointed that there has not been a better take-up. I emphasise what I have


already said: the ending of the OTMS is not something I can simply do with a stroke of a pen, and I have properly qualified our ability to move forward on that.
We have made good progress in creating a computerised cattle tracing system for Great Britain. It will become operational in September and will record the birth, movements and death of all cattle moving into the national herd from late September. Holding details on cattle on a central database will provide swift and accurate information to help trace animals easily if there is a disease outbreak and it will give greater assurance to buyers and consumers about an animal's history.
The new system is an essential part of rebuilding confidence in British cattle and British beef, at home and abroad. We recognised that and began implementation as soon as we came to office. We took an early decision about the site for the new service that will run the cattle tracing system. That site is ready and the equipment has been delivered and installed. Some staff are engaged in test runs and more are being recruited, including a number of Welsh-speaking staff so that farmers from Wales may communicate effectively in their own language with the centre at Workington.
Over the next few months, there will be intensive testing of the new system before it is launched. We have already demonstrated the scheme with an audiovisual presentation to other European Agriculture Ministers at the recent informal Council in Northumberland. We were fortunate to host the Council and to be able to make the presentation.
The audiovisual presentation was followed by a practical demonstration at Park farm, Alnwick, of live animals being electronically tagged; then the food chain was followed right through to a meat counter that we had installed with the help of the Meat and Livestock Commission. That showed the absolute traceability of beef that was bar-coded, down to portions for sale in a butcher's shop or on supermarket shelves. It was an excellent bit of work, and I congratulate all involved, including staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Don Curry, the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and, last but by no means least, Tim Mallen of Park farm, who showed unfailing courtesy and patience over months of visits from my staff and me to ensure that everything possible was being done to convince our European colleagues of the scheme's effectiveness.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome, as I am sure we all do, the fact that the headquarters at Workington will have Welsh-speaking staff to assist Welsh farmers. Will it also have Gaelic speakers to assist Gaelic-speaking farmers?

Dr. Cunningham: We will probably have a few Geordie speakers, too. I shall look into the possibility. In the interests of efficiency, of course, we would much prefer electronic communication with the centre, but we recognise that that is not yet possible for all farmers.
Let me turn to a more difficult issue, which, although not strictly speaking directly to do with CAP reform, has to do with management of MAFF. It relates to the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich.
The health and well-being of consumers and the protection of the environment are, as everyone knows, at the top of our agenda domestically, in the CAP reform

negotiations and elsewhere. In Britain, the Central Science Laboratory, which is an integral part of MAFF, provides essential scientific and technical services in support of those objectives.
However, I inherited a very unsatisfactory financial situation. As the design of the CSL's new laboratory at York was approved, the Department's research and development budget has been reduced. The budget has also been subject to heavy and increasing demands from BSE-related research, an area in which the Central Science Laboratory is not involved. As a result, the modern facilities at York have been under-utilised. That was the set of circumstances which I inherited from the previous Government.
Against that difficult background, I have been reviewing the previous Government's decision that the CSL should continue to operate on two sites—principally the York site, but also a smaller presence at Norwich. In order to ensure a more secure future for the agency and a better return from the investment in the excellent facilities at York, I have decided, after long and detailed consideration, that the work done at CSL Norwich should be relocated to the York laboratory. The relocation will be completed during 1999.
Consolidation of the Central Science Laboratory at York will produce a unique and financially robust centre, with strengths throughout the food chain. It will improve the CSL' s ability to compete for public and private sector work, and will strengthen its position as a world-class scientific facility. I know that this announcement will be as welcome in York as it will be unwelcome in Norwich.

Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister is making a statement.

Dr. Cunningham: If I did not announce the decision to the House, I would be criticised and there would be points of order because I had not faced hon. Members and made the announcement in the Chamber. I advise the Opposition to keep quiet and stop whingeing.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I am not giving way.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Minister is refusing to take any intervention from me. Is it not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely a matter for the Minister from whom he takes interventions.

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining that I have not given way sufficiently during the debate.
I understand and respect the vigorous, sustained and continuing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on behalf of his constituents, and I pay full tribute to him for that. I have met him


several times on the subject, we have corresponded regularly, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has answered innumerable questions from our hon. Friend.
I also understand the consequences of the decision—the upheaval for staff and their families. More welcome news was announced yesterday by the Government: the Institute for Food Research will relocate to Norwich, so that will be some compensation.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. I pay tribute to the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have tried to deal with the matter in an open way. However, the entire food science community will regret that shoddy decision, which will damage food science research in this country.
I acknowledge that it was an extremely difficult decision for the Minister, but I believe that it would have been better to wait for the establishment of the Food Standards Agency before taking such a destructive decision, particularly as it was taken for the bureaucratic reasons that he set out, to fill a laboratory that is a white elephant. As he said, it was an inherited—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long an intervention.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman should leave it there.

Dr. Cunningham: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the subject, but it is certainly not a shoddy decision. It is a decision in the best interests of the long-term viability of the Central Science Laboratory, although I understand that it is controversial.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The decision will be warmly welcomed in York. We already have a community of 1,500 bioscientists, who have a combined research spend of £80 million a year. Although the decision was difficult, it was the right decision for British science, MAFF and the farming community.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the careful and patient way in which he has listened to arguments from me and from other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I hope that he will continue to listen carefully to the York case for building on the Sand Hutton site to allow additional work on novel foods, and a seedbed for small bioscience businesses.

Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have three hours to debate the reform of the CAP, which is a matter of great interest to the constituents of Conservative Members, but the debate has degenerated into a private discussion among Labour Members about where a quango should be located.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This afternoon's debate can cover a wide range of topics, and that is exactly what the Minister is doing. Points of order only take time out of the debate.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The distinguished scientists at York, in a leading institution established by the previous Government, will take careful note of the derogatory description of them and their institution by the rather foolish and ill-informed hon. Gentleman who just introduced a bogus point of order.
I want to move on quickly—

Mr. John MacGregor: rose—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have just complained about shortage of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has clearly said that he will not give way.

Dr. Cunningham: I shall move on quickly to farm health and safety issues, which I raise in discussions in Brussels as well as in the United Kingdom
Health and safety on the farm is an area where we must all work for major improvements. Everyone has a right to a safe working environment. We should devote more time to discussion of these matters, whether in the context of CAP reform or elsewhere, because of the appalling record.
I recently asked the Health and Safety Executive to brief me on the agricultural industry's safety record. I am deeply concerned that agriculture has one of the worst health and safety records—

Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been speaking for some 40 minutes, and is moving on to a new subject that has nothing whatever to do with the subject that we are supposed to be debating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have explained that the debate can range widely. I have also explained to hon. Members that points of order take time out of the debate. We have had far too many points of order.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The record shows that, since 1986, 620 people have been killed in farming, and thousands more have been seriously injured. I have made it clear that that is unacceptable and I welcomed the Health and Safety Executive's confirmation that safety in agriculture is now one of its highest priorities. The HSE outlined a range of measures that it is taking, which I welcomed. The Government have allocated the HSE an extra £4.5 million for 1998–99. The money is being targeted on inspection and enforcement, with agricultural safety a key priority.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments on the Order Paper, starting with that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
My first observation is that the amendment is twice as long as the motion tabled by the Government. That tells us something about the verbosity of the Opposition. Secondly, it refers to farm incomes and the difficulties faced by farmers. We know that those difficulties did not


start on 1 May last year. We have no better authority for that statement than the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who stated in his election address:
I have fought for Fylde farmers during a very difficult time"—
the very difficult time being 18 years of Conservative government.
The amendment goes on to refer to rising unemployment in rural areas, when in fact unemployment is falling in rural areas, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. According to the Rural Development Commission figures, rural unemployment as a whole has fallen by almost 4 per cent. since July last year.
In the amendment, the Conservatives—as ever—complain about CAP reforms costing more money, yet they call for British taxpayers to pay more agrimonetary compensation. They call for reform of the CAP, yet oppose the extra short-term costs that that entails. They call for the Government to get the best from the reforms in European negotiations, yet the Conservative party is increasingly dominated by Eurosceptics who refuse to deal with anyone in Europe.
In view of the time, I can be much kinder about the amendment standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
We shall lead the debate in Europe through the Agenda 2000 reforms, so that our farmers are well placed to take advantage of the changes. Reform of the CAP to bring about a more market-oriented and environmentally positive policy is widely recognised by farmers as being in the industry's long-term interests. It is also in the interests of our rural communities and of the economy more widely. My aim is to help bring about such reform. It is the way to secure profitable, competitive and sustainable farming in the United Kingdom. I urge the House to support the Government motion, and to reject the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from '(HC 719);' to end and add:
'albeit against the background of the Government's failed stewardship of British agriculture which has seen farm incomes plummet by 45 per cent, a rise in rural job losses, and a failure to utilise fully all the resources available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the benefit of farmers; urges the Government to negotiate an outcome that works to the advantage of Britain's efficient farming industry as well as to the interests of United Kingdom producers, consumers and taxpayers, and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which does not act against farms larger than the European average, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the United Kingdom's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium term prospect of benefits to developing countries; but regrets the fact that, so far in the discussions on Agenda 2000, the United Kingdom Government has not advanced proposals designed to allow Britain's farming industry to realize its full potential under the revised arrangements.'.
Hearing the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come to life is a bit like watching his beloved Newcastle United: they only show any fire in the last five minutes of a game. I wish that the Minister's presentation had been

a bit more lively at the beginning, because there are many issues that we wanted to raise with him. I welcome the Minister's opening remarks, particularly his comments about cull ewes which will be widely welcomed by those in the sheep trade. It is a matter of concern, and I congratulate the Minister on making a breakthrough in that area. I thank him also for at last having the candour to admit what the real timetable is likely to be for lifting the beef ban. I recall Labour's rhetoric during last year's election campaign about how it would lift the beef ban. Judging from the Minister's comments, that will take about two years—but at least farmers now know the true situation.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: No, not at this stage. I must make progress, because, unlike the Minister, I do not want to speak for 40 or 50 minutes.
The Minister's careful and measured tones throughout the majority of his speech could not hide the real crisis in British farming. We have seen a textbook exhibition of complacency on the part of the Minister in responding to the real concerns of farmers and growers in this country. I am delighted that the Minister has found time to come to the House after a year in office at least to discuss agriculture. It is a pity that some of his Ministers cannot find time to join me when I meet real farmers at the Devon county show tomorrow. Lord Donoughue is in Devon, but he refuses to meet farmers. We shall hear the true and authentic voice of British farming when we are out and about at the agricultural shows.
This debate will enable us to see in stark terms how hard the shoe is pinching in rural Britain as a result of the way in which the Government have conducted their stewardship of their farming responsibilities. The rural economy in this country is really suffering. For some who are listening to the debate, Agenda 2000 will seem a distant prospect because farmers and agribusinesses are going to the wall now. We shall say more about that later in the debate.
The debate will also give the House an opportunity to assess whether the Agenda 2000 proposals will allow Britain's efficient farmers to prosper in an ever more competitive world or merely do the minimum required to get the World Trade Organisation off our backs. As I said a moment ago, the harsh reality of farming today in this country—which the Minister did not want to talk about—is illustrated by the Ministry's own figures. Farm incomes fell last year by 45 per cent. and the value of farming output fell by £1.9 billion. The value of subsidies was down by £322 million, including the hill livestock compensatory allowances which are so vital to the Minister's farming constituents, and which were cut by £35 million. Farmers also know that price fixing for next year—consideration of which is part of the debate—offers them little prospect of additional help or relief.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it not true that current farm incomes are at about the same level as they were more than a decade ago in 1985–86? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm those figures?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should try convincing real farmers that that kind of retrospective analysis has any


relevance to their current situation. That is typical of Labour's lack of understanding, lack of sympathy and lack of appreciation of the real problems facing farmers. In any event, I think that the hon. Lady has cited cash figures rather than real figures.
As if that is not enough, farmers have had to face the endless uncertainty surrounding the lifting of the beef ban. The Minister has today removed a little of that uncertainty, but we clearly do not know what other member states will say. I have received letters from the Danish and German Ministers asking questions about the procedures that we have in place. I hope that they were convinced by the Minister's display. If it was as good as he says, let us hope that they will stop prevaricating, agree that we have met the Florence agreement terms and lift the beef ban once and for all.
Farmers have also faced the beef-on-the-bone ban this year. Perhaps the Minister should spend a little time reading Farmers Weekly. If he did, he would read how Rev. Ian Hall, the vicar of Eskdale in the Minister's constituency, describes that policy as a "pig's ear" and as "draconian". The Minister is condemned out of the mouths of his own constituents. What was his response?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Eric Martlew: rose—

Mr. Jack: I will not give way at the moment. The Minister's response to the problems of agriculture was to spend the equivalent of half the annual income of a Cumbrian hill farmer on an antique reproduction desk for his office. It is little wonder that another of the Minister's constituents, Joss Naylor of Bowderdale, told Farmers Weekly that the Minister
has gone very wrong, like a lot of people when they get into a job like that … his heart is set on doing away with the little farms that have made the Lake District what it is today.
I am glad that my constituents are not saying that about me or any of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to the ban on beef on the bone. He will remember that when we debated that issue in the House, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted together. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the initial outcome of the decision at Selkirk sheriff's court in the Scottish borders, which went against the case advanced by the Government—although the matter is still before the Court of Session in Edinburgh. If he does welcome that result, what is his view about the Scottish Tory party's claim that that case should not have gone to court in the first place?

Mr. Jack: The case did go to court, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks have shown clearly that the Minister is incapable even of doing the wrong thing correctly.
We have heard much about Labour's views on reform of the common agricultural policy. In its publication, "The CAP—Time for a Change", Labour said:
the family farm structure of much of the industry and the role of farming in the rural areas … these factors together make farming deserving of special attention".

What kind of special attention have the Government given farming? If the Minister had spoken to any of the farmers who demonstrated at our ports or who marched in London, he would know that they believe that they have received no sympathetic consideration whatsoever—and certainly no special treatment.
Anyone who heard the Minister's hard-nosed speech at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union will know exactly what I mean. It made a mockery of Labour's claim that things could only get better. The situation in farming has got considerably worse since 1 May. Family farms will be £20 a week worse off as a result of tax rises in the Budget—so much for special treatment for farmers.
Part of the crisis in British farming is a result—

Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should be patient; he is irritated because I am getting under his skin. He always interrupts me when we get to the truth of the matter.
Part of the problem is that the Government subcontracted the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England. The pound soared because rates were too high. There have been three green pound revaluations. That has cost farming £522 million, according to the NFU, and has encouraged a flood of imports that has kicked the floor out from under agricultural prices. That is what has caused the crisis in farming. What did we get from the Minister when farmers appealed for help? We got the usual mantra that no money was available because of the self-imposed public spending position and that agrimonetary compensation arrangements were not available to farmers.
Even on the last point, we found the Minister wanting. We analysed the MAFF annual report and, as verified by the Library of the House of Commons, clearly showed that he had underspent his budget last year by £139 million, and that he planned to underspend by £46 million this year. Before he gets to his feet, I should say that I accept the line of argument in his rebuttal that his Ministry is not sitting on a pile of money. In strict public expenditure terms, however, if he had had the real interests of farming at heart, in these exceptional times he would have used that as a bargaining chip in asking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about using that money. Instead, British farmers' own money has gone back into the Treasury. The Minister does not have the courage to ask for it from the Treasury; if he had done so, he could have levered in £200 million of agrimonetary help to farmers, or provided special help schemes to see them through these difficult times.

Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman came out with that utter rubbish on 30 April during agriculture questions, and I immediately wrote to him. He is comparing estimated and forecast expenditure with outturn expenditure. He is a former Treasury Minister, so that says a lot about his failure to understand Government accounting. As he knows, there was no underspend in my departmental budget last year, and there is no planned underspend this year. His remarks are not only rubbish, but deeply misleading to farmers, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Jack: I am surprised that the Minister does not know the difference between a public spending total and


outturn, because that is what my figures are based on. I have checked them with the Library and I have talked to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Dr. Cunningham: Rubbish.

Mr. Jack: It is great to hear the Minister rubbishing the Library of the House of Commons and the IFS. I am sorry that he has contradicted them; I wanted to make sure that my facts were right, and he has proved that they were.
The Minister talked about agrimonetary arrangements. When he pays attention, I shall ask him two questions—the ones that farmers want answered. Will farmers be able to receive their payments in euros after 1 January? Will the Minister be more specific about what will happen at the end of the year, because if we do not save the current 11 per cent. shield on agrimonetary arrangements, farming will lose £400 million?
I asked Farmers Weekly whether there were any questions that farmers wanted to ask the Minister at this stage in our debate. Mr. Peter Hall, of Wrexham, asked:
Why is it that in just 12 months of a Labour government, the confidence of farmers has declined so dramatically?
That sums up the mood of farming. Mr. Rich, of St. Buryan, asked the Minister:
Do you want us? If so, let us know your forward planning. If not … lie low.
Mr. Leslie Foss asked:
What is the future for … young farmers?
Mr. Ward, of Rotherham, asked whether the Minister would do anything to help lowland suckler herds. I could go on and on, but I shall send the Minister those searching questions. If the Government are the people's Government, the people's farmers deserve a reply from him.
The rural economy is suffering as a result of the Government's policies. For example, is the Minister proud of the findings of a report by the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies in Aberystwyth, which forecasts a loss of 5,000 rural jobs in Wales over the next decade? That is a rather odd statistic to discuss when the Government's welfare-to-work scheme is coming into play, but that is the situation in Wales, a key part of the United Kingdom which is dependent on agriculture.
The situation is similar in the rest of the country, and agricultural jobs are being lost. For example, there have been 23 redundancies at Ryehill Farm Services in Malton, Carter Agricultural in Norfolk has reduced its work force by 25 per cent., and the labour force at Lumeter Ltd. in Oldbury is down by 20 per cent. There are many more examples of where the shoe is pinching tightly as a result of the Government's stewardship of agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give more information.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales and has dwelt on farmers' incomes. The leading article in last week's Farmers Guardian discusses the effect of the euro and is based on Barclays bank's suggestion that farmers should ask for payments to be made in euros and open accounts so that they can borrow at European interest rates of 3 or 3.5 per cent. Where does the Conservative party stand on the euro? In view of the comments of the

Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday, are the Opposition in serious danger of being overtaken by events? All farmers will want us to join the single currency.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had been awake a few moments ago, he would have heard my question on that point.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend might like to reflect on the fact that, outside the Welsh Grand Committee, farmers booed the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) when he tried to speak to them in public.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation; I think that I have dealt with the matter.
I put to the Minister four key points on Agenda 2000 which deserve a reply: they are the acid test for the way in which we should consider it. First, will it make British farming more competitive? Secondly, will it avoid knock-on or distortive consequences? Thirdly, will it simplify bureaucratic procedures? Fourthly, will it leave farming profitable? An inevitable consequence of it is that agricultural decision making must become ever more market based, and the cost of the CAP must be reduced for Europe's taxpayers. In the past, we supported reform of the common market agricultural policy, and we favour fundamental reform now. It is ironic, however, that the Labour party backed reduced cost for the CAP in its pre-election rhetoric; the policy before the Council of Ministers is costed at more than the CAP.
The way in which Agenda 2000 has been introduced represents a lost opportunity for Europe fundamentally to rethink its agricultural policy. If it was interested in more competitive agriculture in Europe, there would not have been a proposal to put 1 per cent. of additional milk quota—as the Minister rightly reminded us—up the mountains and in the hands of some of Europe's least efficient dairy producers. There would have been a very different regime. There is no discussion in Agenda 2000 of the new agriculture, products and crops being pioneered in this country by organisations such as Anglian Industrial Crops. The current policy is being chipped away to make it friendly in the eyes of the WTO.
We strongly back the proposals in Agenda 2000 further to decouple support from production, while recognising that farmers have wider responsibilities as strategic food producers and environmental custodians of the countryside. Where will the measures be subjected to the greatest pressure? It is a pity that Ministers are engaging in conversation while we are asking relevant questions on behalf of farmers. I repeat the question. Where does the Minister think that the measures will come under the greatest pressure, either from within the EU or from the World Trade Organisation? Does he think that the current reform package, which tries to be all things to all men, is the best way in which to approach these crucial negotiations?
I welcome the Minister's commitment to defend the interests of Britain's more efficient and larger farms. I should like to examine his language in responding to the Select Committee on this issue. He said that he would seek to avoid conclusions that discriminated against the interests of UK agriculture. Why did he not employ more


vigorous language in his reply by committing the Government to negotiate with our partners to convince them that Agenda 2000 must not discriminate against efficient, larger farms, especially those in the United Kingdom?
Can the Minister give a cast-iron assurance that he will oppose ceilings that would reduce payments according to farm size? Will the continued existence of subsidies that are linked to production be acceptable to the WTO? Can he say more about his environmental requirements on cross-compliance, on the loss of income and on the factors that will have an impact on farmers who breach the cross-compliance requirements? What about national envelopes? Will he guarantee that all the money that is taken under the terms of national envelopes will be spent on United Kingdom farms, or will he do as he did with his underspend and simply return the money to the Treasury?
We need to know more about the Minister's flexibility under the new proposals. We should like to hear more about the operation of the new objective 3 rural policies. Will fewer people be covered by them? How will the Minister ensure that tenant farmers in new agri-based businesses will be able fully to take advantage of the new arrangements? Such farmers are a significant and important part of British farming, but, under the current law, their tenancy agreements prevent them from diversifying in the way that is suggested by Agenda 2000.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will highlight the problems of British agriculture and the challenges that it will face under Agenda 2000. They will highlight the fact that while the Minister has had stewardship of British agriculture, he has shown little sympathy or understanding for the real needs of Britain's farmers. It is only through the Opposition that their voice can truly be heard.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have spoken in many debates on agriculture but in none of them have there been more Labour Members than Conservatives. That shows the Government's interest in agriculture and suggests that Conservative Members have caught the early train home.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the excellent job he has done over the past 12 months. He had a difficult job and took over from the worst Minister this century. He has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who was a MAFF Minister in the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the ban on beef on the bone. During the statement on that ban, the right hon. Gentleman did not criticise it, and the leader of the Conservative party supported it. It was only when Conservatives thought that they could make a party political issue out of it that they opposed the ban, and that has happened again in this debate.
I shall not spend any more time speaking about Conservatives because some local issues have worried me over the years. One of them is the sale of green-top milk, which is raw and unpasteurised. It is said that people should be given the freedom to buy it, but I worked in the dairy industry for 20 years and I do not think that it is safe. The Government are putting the facts together, and if the scientific facts show that green-top milk should be banned, they should ban it. If that happens, there will

be an outcry in the press, and the Opposition and perhaps some spin doctors will say that it should not be banned. However, if we are not careful there will be an outbreak resulting in fatalities. Outbreaks from such sources often affect the young, and I should not like to be here if a Labour Government put young people at risk.
Milk quotas were introduced because of a milk surplus in Europe, but that merely swapped one problem for another. Quotas were traded and no milk was involved. I am sorry that quotas will not be phased out much faster. To do that may mean reducing milk support to world levels, but it would be worth it, especially for British farmers who are probably the most efficient in Europe. Cumbria contains many efficient farmers, but they are not producing milk on the fells. It is nonsense to give extra quota to the mountainous areas of Europe. It should be given to places such as the Eden valley, Solway plain, Cheshire and the south-west.
I visited a local farmer at the end of March towards the end of the quota term. He had to stop good milk entering the system because he was over quota. He had a major problem, but he could not pour the surplus down the drain because, if he had, the Environment Agency would have chased him. We must get rid of quotas as soon as possible. I recently spent a weekend in Buttermere, which is probably one of the world's most beautiful places. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), as is Borrowdale. I first visited the area 30 years ago as a schoolboy. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps more than 30 years ago.
In that area, I noticed a difference in the landscape that was not due to tourism, because that is controlled by the Lake District planning board. The difference was not even the yellow lines on country roads. It was the effect of overgrazing on the fells. The system encourages farmers to put too many sheep on the hills, and that is destroying the habitat. When I was there, a gale was blowing and many of the old trees were being felled. However, there is no natural regeneration of the woodlands. They have gone because Europe pays farmers to produce more, although demand for beef and sheep meat is going down. We must quickly take action on that.
When major changes in agriculture occurred in New Zealand, marginal land was abandoned, but Britain will not accept such a policy because, to many of us, such land forms the most beautiful parts of our country. Therefore, we must have a system whereby we target money to those farmers, so that they continue to farm, but at a less intensive rate and we keep them in that area. We have to do that by specifically saying to them that we will help them to maintain the countryside and give them extra money.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the line that is being pursued by the Government—that we need to reduce the number of people who farm in upland and mountainous areas—is exactly the wrong approach?

Mr. Martlew: That is a misinterpretation of what the Government are saying. There is a feeling that farmers who farm marginal land are not very well rewarded, which they never have been, and that we should perhaps encourage some of them to amalgamate and give them extra resources. What we should not do is force them off


the land. We should have a system whereby they can stay. However, we have a difficulty in giving taxpayers' money to farmers because we appear to give the money to all farmers. That creates resentment among the general public. Often, people see that farmers live in bigger houses, drive better cars and have greater capital assets than they do, yet they are expected to subsidise them, so we must specifically target farmers who have real problems.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martlew: I am sorry. I have only 10 minutes. I am not going to give way.
Animal welfare is another issue which concerns me. As some hon. Members may remember, I introduced a Bill to ban the export of calves to Europe in veal crates. It was stopped by the previous Government, but then the trade was stopped by BSE, which was caused by them.
Animal welfare in this country is the best in Europe. I give credit to the previous Government. They brought in legislation that was far in advance of that anywhere else in Europe. We pressured Europe to improve conditions. I am sure that, under the ministry of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that will continue, but we have to say to people that if we are paying billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to the CAP, we should make animal welfare a major priority.
I do not wish to say any more because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am pleased to say again that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done a very good job, under difficult circumstances.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Obviously, it is very difficult to follow a speech as savage as the one that has just been delivered, particularly the peroration. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be—I am sure he will—robust enough to deal with constructive criticism that is not quite as overly wired-in and sycophantic as the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). It is very good that those remarks will appear in Hansard, because, if the hon. Member is seeking higher things in the Labour party, it will do him good to have that confirmation coming from occasional partners on certain constitutional issues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that that is an open secret; I do not think that there is much doubt about that.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was disappointing; in a way, the Government got rather an easy ride from the so-called official Opposition—[Interruption.] I am glad that they have come to life. They did not come to life during the right hon. Gentleman's speech; it is nice that they have come to life during this one. It is none the less an important debate and it is timely for two reasons. First, there is a genuine crisis—crisis is a word which is much overused in politics by all of us—in agriculture throughout the UK. Secondly, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government as a whole hold the presidency of the Council of Ministers.
It is a bit bizarre—it says a lot about this place—that more has not been said about the presidency. People have very short memories. When, a few months ago, the Prime Minister unveiled at Waterloo station, in all that glitzy, glamorous style of his, his headline objectives for the presidency, he singled out CAP reform as one of the principal objectives. Then, after the discussions with Chancellor Kohl and the German Government made it clear that, with the elections coming up in the autumn, which looked problematical then and look even more problematical now, they were not willing to countenance any significant or fundamental changes to the CAP before those elections, reform slipped drastically down the agenda.
That was a disappointment. We read in the newspapers about what European agriculture Ministers were eating, what they were going to see and what delights they were going to sample—I am sure that they had an excellent time when they were hosted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—but we have heard precious little during or since last week about what was achieved in practical terms. I found it telling that the Minister had nothing whatever to say about that.
One would have thought that, in a round-robin debate highlighting CAP reform, the Minister would have been able to give the House more of an indication of the progress that had been made under his chairmanship during the six months. That speaks volumes for the Government's approach. The style is good, but the substance, when we begin to look at the detail, simply is not there. It is that detail which I want to deal with in my remarks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The first detail—detail is perhaps the wrong term to use; let us say the first item—is the strength of currency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a speech to that effect in the House earlier this week. Without going through all the details of that again, there is not a shadow of doubt that the sheer strength of sterling is placing the most profound pressure on every section of manufacturing industry, and agriculture is a primary example.
It is extremely significant—I do not blame the Conservative spokesman for not wanting to delve into the issue—and pertinent that the NFU leadership has come out as unequivocally as it has in favour of a single European currency. It recognises two things: first, the way in which events are moving; it recognises that if that famous train is departing, it is better to be coupled to it than to be left on the platform. Secondly, the leadership hears what its constituents, its fee-paying members, are telling it at the grassroots: the strength of sterling at present is a massive disincentive to their agricultural efforts.
That is why we remain not just committed to the single European currency on principle, but frustrated that the Government are not seizing the golden opportunity that the presidency has given them to drive that event forward and to be in the driving seat. That would have been a major psychological and practical boost to farming incomes. Farming incomes in Wales are, I think, worse than those in any other part of the UK, but they are by no means the exception. They have been driven down over the past 12 months.
Reading the Conservative amendment, one would think that the world suddenly started at the stroke of midnight on, or into the early hours of, 1 May last year, and that


all the policy initiatives that the Conservatives suddenly seem to favour and all the things that they are against were a road to Damascus conversion that happened some time on 1 and 2 May last year. Of course, that is not the case, and farmers, perhaps more than most sections of the community, tend to have long memories. They are traditional people and, often, several generations of the same family have managed the plot of land and business. They will not forget that many of the difficulties that are highlighted in the Conservative amendment, and replicated in the Liberal Democrat amendment, did not arise in the past 12 months. The root of them lies in the difficulties that attended farming during the previous Administration.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister really understands rural parts of Wales, for example, and the highlands and islands, where crofting and family farms undoubtedly sustain the economy, the population and the environment? We are not talking about amalgamations and agribusinesses. We need to keep people in such areas, and agriculture is one of the ways of achieving that.

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her intervention brings us to the heart of CAP reform. We should be trying to protect and promote the family farm, not just for reasons of sentiment but for reasons of sense. The Minister talks about restructuring agriculture. I remember Margaret Thatcher talking about restructuring coal, steel and various other industries in the 1980s. Restructuring is a very ominous term. My worry, which is shared widely outside the House, is that the Government's approach to Agenda 2000 and CAP reform is to restructure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) rightly acknowledged, in a way that we do not want—into agribusiness and much bigger holdings, so that the family farm will be lost.
The Government have not given nearly enough sensitive thought or attention during their presidency to the fact that if we want more sustainability, more environmental responsibility and more active husbandry of the landscape, we need people to achieve it. Mr. Fischler can come out with the most amazing ideas, the Council of Ministers can modify them in the most brilliant ways, but if, in the interim, the Government's restructuring instincts bear fruit, we will not have the personnel to deliver the desired policy.

Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is a danger of two forms of restructuring: one due to the strength of sterling, which is forcing people out of the industry, and the other due to the fact that, potentially, we are sleepwalking into Agenda 2000, which favours larger holdings and forcing people off some of our most fragile land?

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. His part of Perthshire, for example, is a classic example of an area that could be endangered in the longer term if we go blindly—sleepwalking is a very good way of putting it—into such a cul de sac. There is no viable option for many people in such areas short of some land-environment-

conservation-husbandry role in the local community. The Government have not given sufficient sustained thought to that.

Mr. Jack: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: Having been so critical of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be churlish not to give way to him.

Mr. Jack: May I ask a simple question? What is the Liberal Democrats' view of labour unit modulation?

Mr. Kennedy: That is at the heart of the matter, too. It was interesting what the Minister alluded to in his speech. If modulation is applied in the way in which it is being suggested at European level, it will be doubly damaging to UK fanning interests because of the issue of size. I hope that we might hear a little more about the matter in the Minister of State's winding-up speech.
I noted that the Minister referred to the national application of modulation. I am not quite sure what he meant by that. If he meant what I hope he means, the phrase is encouraging. I hope that, as and when modulation is introduced, the Government intend there to be repatriation—that is a dirty word to use in politics due to the late Enoch Powell, but I use it in the best sense—of degrees of decision making. As the UK is evolving, with the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, let us hope, a Northern Ireland assembly, I hope that discretion will be devolved to this member state to apply modulation sufficiently sympathetically and sensitively to UK agricultural interests.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: No, I will not—but it is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Government will take on board points made about modulation and that we are able to make common cause across the Floor of the House on it, because we recognise something of a east-west divide in Scotland, England and Wales over the issue.
We are considering a very difficult situation against the backdrop of CAP reform, and, perhaps, this debate has not so far addressed that. However, we would be wrong not to hold the Government to account or absolve them from responsibility for the extra costs that they are choosing to impose on agriculture. We know that there are already higher charges in the knackery sector. We know that there will be extra costs for pig and poultry farmers in order to comply with EU environmental and pollution legislation. Incidentally, such farmers do not receive EU support.
There are new costs for pig accommodation, new rules on calf accommodation, proposed tagging of sheep and pigs, proposed changes in standards for poultry, likely new EU groundwater directive supervision charges and unilateral rules imposed on specified risk material. Those are significant add-on costs to any business, but to impose them on agriculture during an agricultural recession is perverse.
The Government and the Liberal Democrats disagree in principle about the use of tax revenue. As they well know, we favour more largesse and, if necessary, more taxation


to provide it. None the less, we argue strongly that imposing additional charges on the farming community without introducing sufficient compensatory measures makes a very bad situation even worse. We urge the Government to reconsider.
The way forward on CAP reform generally and Agenda 2000 in particular must surely be towards family-farm based agriculture that conforms with the size of local communities and places greater emphasis on husbandry of local land. The deep dilemma for so many people in agriculture is that they are listening to a Government who are paying lip service to CAP reform, but talking about restructuring British agriculture. The net effect of their policy will be not only contradictory and self-defeating but utterly disastrous for the future of family farms, particularly in marginal parts. If the Government take any message from this debate it should be that, as they approach the end of a rather dispiriting and disappointing UK presidency, they should think afresh and think again.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the progress that he has made in having the Northern Ireland beef ban lifted, and on the database scheme for all animals born after 1996 in the United Kingdom. Those developments represent huge progress, and belie the final remark made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on the Government's performance in the European Union presidency.
Tremendous progress has been made, and I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to make such progress. Common agricultural policy reform is one of the Government's priorities, and I am pleased that it has the Government's backing.
Agenda 2000 is preparing the European Union for enlargement to the east, and to deal with pressure in the World Trade Organisation to liberalise European agriculture. Enlargement is desirable, and it is vital that the states of central and eastern Europe are brought into the European Union. If they are not, the likely result will be economic, political and, potentially, military instability.
Enlargement will bring two problems, the first of which is institutional design. There is growing criticism of using the same institutions to govern 20 or more member states as were used in governance of the original six member states.
Although the institutional issue has never really been comprehensively addressed, I think that the budgetary implications of enlargement are more immediate and urgent. Because of the Maastricht convergence criteria, the European Union budget will not expand significantly after enlargement, thereby putting pressure on the major item of European Union expenditure—the common agricultural policy.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the policy goals—which I have re-examined—incorporated into the treaty of Rome: a fair standard of living for farmers, reasonable prices for consumers, and creation and fostering of stable markets for agricultural commodities. However, the mechanism by which those goals were to be achieved is ineffective. It is certainly outdated.
The mechanism is essentially Commission central planning within a market structure. Wholesale price floors and ceilings have been established for a range of commodities. The European Union purchases intervention stock if the market price falls below the floor, and it pays export subsidies to producers when the market price rises above the ceiling. Although I am critical now of the mechanism, initially it was successful, and the sector moved into structural surplus in the 1970s.
The common agricultural policy transformed the European Community from a net importer to a net exporter, which was crucial to achieving the goals of European security and economic recovery. However, by the end of 1990, despite the export subsidy regime, there were 14.4 million tonnes of cereals, 600,000 tonnes of dairy produce and 530,000 tonnes of beef in public intervention storage. Spending on the CAP doubled in real terms between the mid-1970s the mid-1980s. Even the extra expenditure was not sufficient to control the overproduction that was inherent within the system.
Market price support is a highly inefficient way for Governments to give aid to a sector of the economy. Such support requires, among other things, very large and unpredictable levels of Government expenditure, while offering no way of ensuring that the most needy farmers receive the most subsidy. I hope that, in our presidency of the European Union, we will address that issue, which is one of the most important principles of social justice.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: I am not giving way, as I have only 10 minutes and should like to put as much as I can into them.
The common agricultural policy isolates producers from the market, providing a financial incentive simply to produce the maximum possible quantity, as producers know that anything that cannot be sold on the market will be purchased by the European Union. The very good brief that we have had from Compassion in World Farming states that that organisation feels that it is unacceptable to incentivise livestock overproduction, and then either to slaughter or export that livestock to limit the effect of that surplus. I could not agree more.
The CAP also raises many environmental concerns. Maximum-quantity production entails the use of large amounts of fertilisers and fungicides—chemicals to reduce plant growth, and sprays to reduce disease—which have potentially harmful effects on local water supplies and the food chain.
Soil erosion is becoming a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the problem when he was describing the overgrazing problem in high areas near his constituency. Soil erosion occurs also in lower areas. I well remember that—during the general election campaign, when I was driving to help my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—I saw soil blowing off the fields because of soil erosion caused by intensive farming practices. The soil blown off fields ends up as silt in rivers and streams, which is a major cause of flood damage—an issue to which I have drawn the House' s attention on a number of occasions.
Price support creates artificially high food prices in Europe, and depresses world food prices, as the export subsidy allows European Union produce to be sold below


the world price. Price support makes life very difficult for farmers in developing countries, who cannot sell their output at a fair price.
The common agricultural policy is also deeply untransparent in its financial dealings. Through price support, it makes a large resource transfer from EU consumers to producers. If its revenue were raised through direct taxation rather than high food prices, there would be huge public dissatisfaction with current policy.
The 1992 MacSharry reforms were introduced to strengthen the European Union's hand in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, trying to create a shift from price support to direct payments to farmers. Intervention prices were cut, and removed altogether for some commodities.
The reforms had some very minor effects. Arable farms were subjected to rotation or set-aside, for example, although we discovered subsequently that the practice may encourage more intensive farming methods on fields. That reform has not been successful in reducing production.
Labour reduction on farms was achieved by introducing favourable early retirement terms, thereby reducing the number of people working in the industry. Additionally, environmental guidance was given, although I feel sure that it could be strengthened.
The 1992 reforms had some successes. However, I think that the Agenda 2000 proposals will attempt to deal more radically with the structural problems in the European Union—although perhaps not as radically as many Labour Members would like. I certainly encourage the Government to continue to press, within the European Union, not only for more radical reform than is currently on the table but for the much-needed structural change—decried by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West—that is so badly needed if we are to provide more and better support for the most needy farmers, and not necessarily for big agribusinesses.

Mr. David Curry: I am tempted to begin by recommending to the Government that they take a firm stand against any type of common agricultural policy reform, on the ground that most reformed CAP systems cost more than their predecessors. I recommended to the previous Government that they take that unique stand in their general election manifesto. Although I was not successful in getting that suggestion accepted, history may show that there may have been a grain of truth in the idea.
Even if we were to take the stand that I suggested, we would be in a wholly untenable position, as two great juggernauts are bearing down on the CAP. The first one is enlargement, with which Agenda 2000 attempts to deal. The key element in enlargement is Poland. In determining the future shape of agriculture in Europe, Poland is more important than all the other countries put together.
The second, and more important and inescapable development, is the Singapore round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, or the World Trade Organisation. It is important to realise the extent to which the decisions that we shall have to make in that round

have already been conditioned by the decisions that we made in the previous round. The framework has already been set by those decisions.
If the European Union wants to attack world markets and be free to take advantage of, for example, consumer opportunities in south-east Asia and of the productivity gains that remorselessly occur in agriculture—whether or not they are convenient—it must free itself from its dependence on export subsidy. While the EU is dependent on export subsidy, it is locked into having fixed quantities to put on the world market. We effectively have no choice if we want our agriculture to look outwards, towards an international competitive environment.
Of course, farmers will react differently. There will inevitably be a generation gap in agriculture. For some in the dairy industry, particularly elderly farmers who are locked into farm tenancies in difficult areas, the milk quota is their pension. They would be reluctant for quotas to disappear because that is the only pension to which they can aspire. Their sons might well consider the milk quota an imprisonment that prevents them from getting more productivity out of their farm. They may face having to de-intensify and produce less because of the cost problems of having to hire extra staff.
An important third force, which is just as powerful and must be understood, is consumer demand and what the marketplace is asking for within our shores. The demands for traceability, farm assurance, better welfare standards, health undertakings and environmental protection and conservation represent, initially, costs to the farmer; but they are also conditions that he must meet so that the marketplace is willing to take, and will be satisfied with, his product.
Farmers may rail, as I know they do from time to time, at what they see as the iniquities of Tesco and Sainsbury's, but that is futile because the supermarkets are at the cutting edge of consumer demand. They provide one of the major outlets for farmers, and it is in farmers' long-term interests to work alongside the supermarkets and produce what they require.
It is interesting that, in the present circumstances, those pressures come together in a series of outcomes to reform. A move to direct aid divorced from production is, first, the essential policy underlying Agenda 2000. Secondly, it is the key formulation required to achieve a successful outcome in the World Trade Organisation. Thirdly, it is the outcome which most commends itself to environmental and consumer interests. For once, we have the opportunity to square the circle—or, at least, the triangle—by having a method of sustaining agriculture that meets with the approval of consumers and taxpayers, conforms with the requirements of GATT and opens the way for the enlargement of the Community and the eastward extension of the liberal society, which is what almost every hon. Member desires.
We need to work out the scenarios by which we can achieve an effective construct of non-production aids. We have a great deal of experience with relatively small-scale schemes, such as the environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship. I know that in Wales there are schemes that work very effectively. We need a codification or a menu of those schemes, so that, before we take part in the GATT talks and consider the outcomes, we have an idea of the offers that we will be able to put before farmers. That might help us to come


out of the GATT round with a clear idea of how to use those schemes constructively. That is a proposal which the Select Committee could consider, but it will not be easy.
In the Yorkshire dales, in my constituency, it is obvious that we would want to preserve environmental assets such as stone walls, barn roofs, meadows and woodlands—and in Somerset, the water meadows—but it is less obvious in Cambridgeshire and parts of East Anglia. It is important to begin setting out what environmental aid farmers would be eligible for as we move towards greater dependence on that aid and away from production aid.
I am not an enthusiast for cross-compliance because it is too linked to output, and the two should be divorced. However, I understand that it has attractions as a transitional instrument.
There are implications for reform, and on that point I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). We shall inevitably see the development of more corporate agriculture, which, with the demand for agricultural investment, the possibility of expansion, the pressures on costs—including labour costs—and inputs, and the requirements to conform to quality standards, represents a push towards greater size in agriculture.
That development is occurring in the dairy sector, where about 11,000 producers now account for well over 50 per cent. of output, and in pig production, where 80 per cent. of pig meat is produced by 2,000 mainland British producers out of 10,000. It can also be seen in the continuing change in the arable sector: when a farm comes up for sale, the land is sold to the neighbouring farmer and the household to an individual.
Conversely, an expansion of part-time farming is also likely. That trend is already occurring on farms where the income depends on a second source that is not identified with production. We need to sustain and support such agriculture. Agriculture should not be viewed as an activity unto itself, divorced from the wider needs of the rural economy, or as a religious practice, separate from the wider rural community.
The long-term future must depend on market orientation for agricultural output and, therefore, the ability of farmers to bid into programmes. I would not object if we experimented with competitive programmes to deliver environmental and other assets. Indeed, I should be interested to examine—I know that this idea is being discussed in Wales—the possibility of developing social assets, such as farmers' employment and housing, to be capable of being delivered or safeguarded as part of the wider reform of agriculture. I wanted to focus on the long term because I thought that much of the debate would necessarily focus on the immediate concerns.
In the short term, we need for agriculture, as for much of business, a clear path to the single currency set out by the Government. We have a pound that is too high and volatile. We have five tests set by the Chancellor—only one matters, but getting five ducks in a row is not possible for anybody at any time. We have an uneasy triangle between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Mr. Murdoch. We have doubts over the period of exchange rate stability before we are eligible to join a single currency.
We desperately need clarification and an indication to the market of the Government's intentions, because the market takes note and deals with the currency in the light

of those. At the moment, the market does not know what intentions to attribute to the Government. That is a major problem for everybody in the United Kingdom, and farmers suffer most immediately because of the green pound effects. Change is inescapable, but the present coruscating crisis can be alleviated only by the Government accepting their responsibilities.

Mr. Paul Marsden: When I read the official Opposition's amendment to the motion, I wondered who had written it because it is misleading and full of errors. I then listened to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and realised that he must have had a hand in it because his tub-thumping speech—which was completely devoid of reality—was meant simply to rouse farmers and farming communities by rhetoric, not fact.
I was also amazed at the Opposition's proclamation that the common agricultural policy should be brought under stricter financial control. I agree with that, but I found it a little strange coming from the right hon. Member for Fylde, because, over the 18 years of Tory Government, the UK contribution to the CAP rose by 79 per cent., which meant a net outflow of £2.1 billion from this country. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can start correcting some of the horrendous mistakes in those finances that date from the Tory past.
Under Agenda 2000, I shall focus on the plight of the rural areas. That, too, has been caused by the Tory Government. Rural areas have been left with 29 per cent. of parishes not having a village hall, while 43 per cent. have no post office. Under the Tory Government, who withdrew investment from local authorities and did not care, post offices, shops and schools closed, and the bus route network collapsed. The Labour Government are now trying to turn that situation round, and I urge the Minister to continue with his endeavours towards an integrated rural policy within Agenda 2000.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marsden: No, I would like to make some headway first.
As things stand, only about 4 per cent. of the budget proposed under Agenda 2000 will go towards rural development. That is not good enough. We must take a more holistic approach to rural development, and include social, economic and environmental factors as well as agricultural factors. That is vital if our rural communities are to survive.
I make a special plea for greater investment. I welcomed the news in the Budget that there would be £50 million for rural transport, and I hope that we can find even more money for that purpose, because access, especially to jobs, is so important for young people. They can be stranded in rural areas, with few job opportunities. I welcome, too, the Government's ventures into IT, and their attempts to open some of the village halls and provide more facilities for young people in rural areas.

Mr. Hayes: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for an integrated rural policy, but how does he square that idea with the savage


cuts to shire counties in the local government settlement? The settlement does not even enable the shires to maintain their level of services in rural areas, let alone to improve them as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Marsden: Absolutely, and the answer is simple: it was the Tory party that saddled the Government with the spending plans by which we had to abide. We agreed at the election that we would abide by those plans, so the fault lies fairly and squarely with the Tory Government. [Interruption.] They are your spending plans.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I make no secret of the fact that this year Shropshire, the county that my hon. Friend and I have the honour to represent, did not get the deal that we hope it will get next year. However, Shropshire's problem is the fact that this year's settlement came on top of four successive years of settlements under the previous Government, and the cumulative impact was a bridge too far for the county.
Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the Tory Government's deregulation of buses, 86 per cent. of parishes in rural Shropshire have no daily service? Fortunately, the Government are providing £700,000 for Shropshire's transport system to be improved, but, until we can reconnect people to employment, to schools, to health care, to training—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—to family, to friends and to shopping, we shall get nowhere in the rural areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—set of points. I concur with what he said. Over the past five or six years, Shropshire has suffered cuts of about £40 million, thanks to the Conservative Government, and the sort of damage that that inflicted in terms of schools closing—

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Marsden: I have already given way. Time is short and I wish to press on now.
The Government have taken the right approach and I support their actions. They have new-found respect in Europe and are making great headway. In his absence, I put it to the right hon. Member for Fylde that, when he asks when the beef ban will be lifted, I remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) saying that it would be lifted six months after it was first imposed—in November 1996, I believe. I put the question straight back to the right hon. Member for Fylde: his right hon. Friend missed that deadline, did he not?
Labour Members firmly believe that the beef ban will be lifted. It is encouraging that it is to be lifted in Northern Ireland, and we now have a date that we can look forward to when exports from there will be allowed. I welcome the development of the cattle tracing system, the organic

aid scheme, and improvements to animal welfare. Those are just some of the things that the Government have achieved in 12 short months, despite having had to pick up so many of the pieces left by the previous Government. I am confident that my constituents will bear with us while we continue to sort out the mess that we inherited.
I emphasise the need for a Ministry for rural affairs. We need a Department at Cabinet level that can adopt an integrated approach to rural affairs, which must embrace the socio-economic and environmental aspects as well as the agricultural aspects. It is important that those are all dealt with together, and rural communities will then have a clear focus and support at Cabinet level.
The Government have made great strides, and it is a bit rich when we hear from the Opposition Benches—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Marsden: I shall not give way, because my time is almost up.
It is a bit rich when Conservative Members try to seize the rural areas as their own. Rural areas do not belong to the Conservative Party; they did not at the general election, when far more Labour Members than Conservatives were returned for rural areas, and people clearly saw through the hypocrisy of the Tories' words.
We focus on the issues of health and education and on the importance of agriculture in those areas. That is what people want to hear, and that is what we shall deliver. Through my hon. Friend the Minister, we have made great progress in tackling CAP reform, and we are delivering on our promises—unlike the Tory Government, who repeatedly broke theirs.

Mr. Peter Luff: As Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am tempted to respond to the words of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) in a slightly more partisan way than I probably should. The hon. Gentleman is a fine Member of the Select Committee and I agreed with much of what he said. However, I have to say that this year's local government settlement really rigged things against the shire counties, for which Worcestershire is paying a heavy price.
I am sorry that there is so little time for the debate today. There will be time for only about eight Back-Bench contributions in what is probably one of the most important debates on agricultural issues that the House can have. It is also one of the most important debates in connection with the build-up to enlargement of the European Union, so it is a matter of regret that those on the Front Benches on both sides of the House agreed to allow only three hours for it. I hope that the usual channels will be able to arrange for another debate on agricultural issues to be held in the near future, to give the many Members on both sides of the House who would have liked to speak a chance to contribute on this important subject.
It is difficult to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy at a time when farm incomes have fallen so sharply. Inevitably, that will make farmers more nervous about the consequences of such reform. However,


the House needs to send out a clear message that there is very broad cross-party consensus about the need for CAP reform, and also about the general shape of the reform needed.
No wonder farmers are concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has kindly shown me some of the questions sent to him by the readers of Farmers Weekly. Concern has been expressed by Mr. David Steed, from near Ramsgate, about the future of small farms; Mr. Robinson of Willow lodge, West Dereham, King's Lynn, has written about the possibility of a level playing field within the common agricultural policy. I understand and respect those concerns, but I think that we must press ahead with reform.
The Select Committee produced a report on CAP reform on 25 February. I am grateful to the Government for mentioning it in their motion and, indeed, for their response to it—there was no point of disagreement between the Committee and the Government, which is encouraging. It is also encouraging that the Committee was itself unanimous, despite comprising a broad range of views of European matters. The report said:
The CAP, and its disproportionate spending, disfigures and discredits the European Union, turning an effort to build unity into unseemly horse-trading dominated by entrenched national and sectoral interests. The time has come for Europe to think radically and bring agriculture into the changed world. If the countries of Europe try to resist, they will be deluding themselves. The international pressure for freer trade and the consequences of enlargement are both irresistible.
I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for their hard work, and to our advisers, Professor Alan Buckwell of Wye college and Professor Alan Swinbank of Reading university. I think that our report made an important contribution to the debate on CAP reform.
The Committee made three background points in its report. First, we were concerned that the Government and their predecessor did not have a sufficiently clear strategy or vision for the future of United Kingdom agriculture, which inhibited their ability to negotiate effectively in the UK's interests. Secondly, we were deeply concerned that the Agenda 2000 proposals would increase, not reduce, CAP expenditure—we found that unacceptable. Thirdly, we found the Commission's outline proposals very timid. We felt that it should have taken a much more positive lead, forcing the Agriculture Council—which meets next week under the United Kingdom's presidency—to grasp more forcefully the nettle of CAP reform.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the EU faces two huge challenges on CAP that cannot be ducked, no matter how much our colleagues on the mainland of Europe think that they can be. The first is the World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture, which are due to begin next year. The Commission' s proposals are an inadequate basis for those discussions. The United States and the Cairns group will seize the moral high ground, whereas the Commission's proposals will give us little more than a base camp in the foothills.
Secondly, the proposals do nothing to deal with the problem of enlargement. How can there be two separate regimes for agriculture in a single market? There cannot possibly be two separate milk quota regimes, for example. Do we really believe that milk quotas can be imposed on Poland when Italy, as it freely acknowledges, found it

very difficult to enforce them? The idea that the proposals will do anything to assist enlargement will, I fear, prove to be folly.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Luff: I should love to give way, but, as I have only 10 minutes, I do not have time, for which I apologise—I wish that we had more time for this debate.
I draw the attention of the House to some of the Committee's main recommendations. Direct compensatory payments are made to compensate farmers for reduced levels of price support, so we feel that, by definition, they cannot be permanent. They must be used to help farmers to adjust to new circumstances. Moreover, they must be time-limited and decrease over time—they must be, to use an ugly word, degressive. They must also be fully decoupled—they must provide no incentive to increase production.
The term modulation causes much confusion. In fact, two types of modulation are under discussion—differentiation and ceilings. I see the attraction of differentiation—varying the amount paid on the basis of a farm's characteristics—but, as we see no long-term role for the payments, we do not believe that that is the right way in which to deal with the concerns about the interests of smaller farms, for example. We believe that separate policy instruments are needed to deal with those concerns.
Similarly, what is the point of cross-compliance on environmental conditions to payments if the payments are to be stopped? If they are not to be stopped, we believe that conditions should be attached provided that they are satisfactory and can be imposed without requiring a huge new bureaucracy in the CAP. Better still, let us get rid of the payments.
The other form of modulation is the imposition of ceilings to limit payments to a farm. I think that that would have very adverse consequences for UK farmers, so I hope that the Government will strongly oppose the proposal, as they said they would.
I had hoped to speak in some detail about the individual commodity sectors, but I do not have time. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing with the Committee's views on the arable sector, on which the Commission proposes only partial decoupling, which does not go far enough, although it is a welcome step in the right direction.
I am also grateful for the Government's endorsement of the Committee's views on beef, but I draw the attention of the House to our third report, in which we highlighted the need for restructuring—another ugly word—the domestic beef sector, but only as part of EU-wide restructuring. There is no doubt that the British beef industry is taking too much of the pain of the necessary restructuring across Europe—we must ensure that that does not continue. There is overproduction in Europe, so Europe as a whole, not only this country, must face the consequences of that. That must be one of the Government's major negotiating objectives in the debate on Agenda 2000.
On dairy farming, the Committee believes that the Government are right to seek the abolition of milk quotas—we hope that that will be one of their principal objectives in the negotiations. I am glad that the Government are making progress in building a coalition


of support for that proposal, including countries such as Italy, which was previously opposed to the abolition of quotas. Abolition will create problems for UK farmers; as has been said, quotas are the major capital asset of too many farmers. Currently, British farmers are producing milk close to world market prices, but they cannot produce as much as they want to; they have the worst of both worlds—low prices and lower production than they can manage. I hope that the Government succeed in ensuring that something is done.
I also hope that the Government are successful in their proposals to reform the tobacco regime, although I suspect that that will be a difficult objective, especially when it comes to building coalitions to secure our other objectives.
The future of the CAP clearly lies in agri-environmental and rural policy. It is a matter of great regret that Agenda 2000 is based not in rural policy proposals, but in agri-rural proposals, so to speak—it does not deal with the wider rural dimension. I hope that the Government will do something to correct that shortcoming. That is why, in the next stage of its examination of Agenda 2000, the Select Committee will consider rural development in detail. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, rural development will be one of the key components of the CAP in the future—which, incidentally, is a good reason for giving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a wider remit than agriculture alone, as MAFF Ministers will have to negotiate rural policy in the years ahead.
On CAP and the consumer, the Committee found it unacceptable that the Commission had failed to provide any estimate of the benefits that could accrue to consumers from reform—that was an extraordinary omission. It was left to the UK Government to make the assessment. They noted that, if lower market prices fed through to the consumer, there could be savings to consumers of up to £1 billion a year in the UK alone, and of up to 10 billion ecu—£6.77 billion—across Europe. I hope that the Government will keep the consumer firmly in mind. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, all interests, including the consumers, march together on this.
CAP reform holds the key to prosperous rural economies, EU enlargement and freer world trade. Much rides on it, and the whole House must wish the Minister every success in the negotiations.

Mr. Mark Todd: I shall focus on the longer-term future of the UK's agriculture industries, but first I make an assumption: because of the changes imposed through the next World Trade Organisation round, the increasing ideological bias against market intervention, and declining consumer and taxpayer tolerance, I believe that, within a dozen years, British agriculture will have no or almost no—production-based subsidies or quotas from either United Kingdom or European sources. Any support will have to be based on other public policy criteria—care for the environment, higher standards of animal welfare than the global market demands, or employment and rural development goals.
Given the varied nature of UK agriculture, its future will be diverse. In mapping our futures, we need to understand the present, but we badly neglect research on it. We need a proper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of our agricultural economy. I compliment the National Farmers Union on its initial report on the competitiveness of the UK farming sector, but much more needs to be done.
We must answer questions such as in what sectors we are already competitive in continental and global terms, and how those strengths and weaknesses are evidenced in our regional economies. We need far stronger research on how our food chain industries fit together to produce a competitive economy for the export sector.

Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which farmers can achieve success is by the localisation of supply, especially through the consequent reduction in transport costs, but also through initiatives such as organic farming? Could British agriculture get back on the world stage in that way?

Mr. Todd: Yes, I agree entirely.
Some sectors, such as horticulture, poultry and pigs—industries which are substantial contributors to the South Derbyshire economy—already compete without support. We have heard tales of gloom and woe, and I do not doubt their truth, but we should also talk about our successes: industries that thrive and prosper in a competitive market.
Some larger producers in the protected sectors could survive without protection. Smaller producers and those in less-favoured areas will face the prospect of radical change, towards niche production, in which quality and added value are critical, volume is less important and extensive methods are viable; environmental maintenance and protection; merger with larger, more competitive producers; diversification into other compatible industries; supported departure from the land, with the land returning to a managed nature; or a combination of those.
Government should ensure that our farming communities have genuine choices. We need to identify the role of Government in the process. In most industries, restructuring would be driven by the market alone, but the historical role of the United Kingdom Government before the common agricultural policy and the European Union came on to the scene, distorting the market and managing much of our agricultural decision making, means that there is a legitimate demand for Government assistance for change.
That assistance can be won only if there is a clear strategy, a clear methodology for implementing it, and an exit point for Government, leaving its role confined to the public policy objective that I set out earlier. Government assistance can then focus on transitional support and initial risk sharing; skills development; international marketing assistance to regain markets that we may have lost; ensuring that public policy concerns do not impinge unduly on competitiveness; and backing all that up with appropriate research.
That is all made far more challenging by our obligation to act in step with our European partners, but that is not an excuse for failure to progress the agenda. We can persuade others only when we are clear about our own goals and strategies, and we can negotiate competently


only within a coherent, long-term policy framework, which we currently lack. Our farming policies are, understandably, too much driven by short-term crisis management, and, less justifiably, by a peculiar British delight in the beauties of bureaucracy.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new genetic technologies give us a great opportunity to produce good-quality foods, with good regulation? If we do not do that on a European basis, the Americans will be well ahead of the game, so European co-operation and CAP reform are very much part of producing new quality food.

Mr. Todd: I agree entirely.
We must concentrate on reform of the CAP on the basis that I have set out. The EU reforms are extremely disappointing and limited: tariff measures remain; there is a substantially increased role for national determination that may lead to inconsistency in the implementation of the measures in individual member states; compensation for price cuts appears to have no time limit or phase-out; continued price support and quotas are inconsistent with likely World Trade Organisation directions; capping may work against the most market-oriented producers and discourage farm mergers; further complexities have been added to an already arcane and bureaucratic system; milk quota increases are targeted at the most marginal producers or new entrants; and continued bureaucratic intervention stifles innovation in a sector that desperately needs it.
There has been useful recognition of environmental obligations, rural development goals and job creation measures, but it is predictable that we will fail in the WTO round to occupy an area that we can defend adequately.
It would have been far better to have a range of agri-environmental and rural development measures that were accessible to some degree to most, if not all, farmers; a focus on area payments rather than price supports or quotas; much more active support for diversification, training and early retirement, perhaps with subsidised insurance and marketing support to aid transition; and an identification of the best in European agriculture, using policy tools to support the transition to a free market. Instead, some reforms foster the least efficient forms of farming. It seems likely that the reforms will have a short life span, perhaps taking us up to the WTO round.
We all subscribe to the protection of the rural environment, without even knowing what we mean by it. In most places in Britain, we have to combine our aspirations for the environment with the need to earn a living and feed our people from the land. When society places those obligations on a farmer, beyond the norm of good practice—I recognise that most UK farmers care deeply about the environment—society should pay the costs.
We must accept that there may be some areas in which it is no longer appropriate to attempt commercial farming; define where they are; and devise measures to allow farmers to withdraw or to transfer to environmental maintenance. We must define what we are seeking to protect in our farmed environment; how we will measure the achievement of that protection; and how policy tools can be devised to secure that protection.
To me, the opportunity is great. We already have, overall, the most competitive farming concerns in Europe. Demand for quality food is growing world wide as

economies mature. Every year, we commit about £4 billion as taxpayers, and a further £3 billion or so as consumers, to a byzantine bureaucracy and subsidy process, controlling individual entrepreneurs at micro-level, in a way not attempted in much of the former Soviet bloc. Poland, which is about to be admitted to the European Union, had a private sector agricultural system throughout the time of Soviet domination. It probably had, and has, a less controlled agricultural sector than the European Union.
Could we not spend the money better and achieve far superior outcomes for both producers and consumers? Few politicians welcome the idea of drip feeding an industry into the future. I have set out an exit strategy that I think will work, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I want to demonstrate accurately the full scale of the crisis that faces British farming. Agenda 2000 ought to have been a bold expression of what the Commission set out to do in 1995 in reforming and moving towards greater trade liberalisation in agriculture, but I agree that the proposals are timid.
I cannot agree with the Minister, who described the beginning of the negotiations as a powerful start. Several members of the European Union have already rejected the proposals, so it is difficult to understand how that could be called a powerful start. While Europe delays, our competitors make hay—to use an agricultural analogy—and the United States in particular is exploiting the opportunity of greater liberalisation and the decoupling of agricultural support to take advantage of its greater farm size; of its economies of scale; and of better public acceptance of technology that delivers greater productivity in farming.
The tragedy is that, on the face of it, British agriculture, with its large farm structures by comparison with the rest of Europe, would be well placed to take advantage of such decoupling and reform. Despite those advantages, no other member state in the European Union goes into the Agenda 2000 negotiations from such a poor base.
The damage caused by the high pound, the ban on beef exports and the industry's loss of confidence in its Minister have produced a state of despair. Without over-dramatising the situation, I had a letter only last week from the National Farmers Union county secretary noting that one of my constituents, a small dairy farmer, had taken his life because he could see no way forward.
We know that the Minister questions why agriculture should be treated differently from any other industry. No one in private business expects to be bailed out, but politicians have set the framework within which these businesses try to thrive. The framework has many constraints, quotas and regulations. It is only right that farmers should hold us politicians to account if they find that the framework is not serving them well. It is not only the straitjacket of the CAP that is causing problems. They are within their rights to call their Minister to account when our domestic economic policy is making it even more difficult for them to compete and secure livelihoods from their farms.
Part of our effective opposition must be to try accurately to assess the scale of the crisis. We have conducted a comprehensive survey of all parts of the


United Kingdom, which reveals that every farm sector and region is affected by the crisis. The answers that we received from our correspondence identify the most serious impact of any decision by the new Government that has adversely affected farming and related industries as that of the Government's refusal to act against the high pound.
Export companies are obviously the most seriously affected. The cereal sales of Ellingham Grain Ltd. in Suffolk are down 80 per cent. Its sales of beans have been halved. A less obvious, but telling, example involves a company affected by imports sucked in by the high pound. A small family mushroom supplier on the Leckford estate in Hampshire is finding it difficult to remain in business because of mushroom imports.
Another telling example was given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). A Kentish hop grower is struggling to survive in the international marketplace with the high pound. He stored hops on his farm for two years, receiving no income from them. Meanwhile, cheap imports of hops are flooding into the UK from the United States and former eastern bloc countries. There has been a slight weakening of the pound in recent weeks, but the short to medium-term prospect is of continuing difficulty for British farmers. They are deeply frustrated because they know that the Minister has a tool at his disposal to compensate under the CAP, but it lies idle on his desk.
How is the industry responding to that cold shoulder? Like the good business men they are, they are forced to tighten their belts. Milton Mills engineering in Dorset has frozen pay, made one mechanic redundant, and stopped donating time charitably. Agropharm in High Wycombe has not replaced retiring staff, and has reduced overheads to contain erosion of its profitability. Many farmers are considering amalgamating into larger units to survive the crisis, reducing the number of the traditional family farms to whose support the Government pay lip service.
For others, it is already too late. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) told me of the Agrisystems company in Boroughbridge, which has gone into receivership. Knight Farm Machinery has shed 11 jobs. Robert D Webster is closing a depot, and John Wood and Son is closing a branch. Those are examples from the real world. It is not only farms but the companies on which agriculture depends that are badly affected.
It does not matter where one goes—north, south, east, west, livestock, arable or horticulture—the picture is the same. The full extent of the problem can be appreciated only when we consider businesses that serve agriculture. Philip Moss and Son in Cheshire told me that farmers do not have the finance to buy even second-hand farm machinery from it. When we asked those businesses whether they felt optimistic or pessimistic about the future, a classic MORI-type question, the answer was overwhelmingly the latter.
The general manager of Milton Mills in Dorset wrote:
The current Government seems increasingly reluctant to take note of the very strong fanning voice which has been expressed and I believe it is evident by their apparent reluctance to approach the EU for special consideration and strong economic support for British Agriculture.
We only get one chance a year to debate price fixing and the future of the CAP. We should have before us a set of radical proposals to reform the CAP. Instead,

we have a tame document that offers little of relevance or comfort to British agriculture in crisis. The Government hide behind platitudes to protect inactivity and apparent indifference. With only this one chance, we have no choice but to speak up for the serious needs of rural Britain.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I wish to speak briefly from a Welsh perspective. We have been provided with documentation of various sorts for this debate, but it is important to remember another report, which was published yesterday: the Welsh Affairs Committee report entitled, "The present crisis in the Welsh livestock industry". I shall give three quotations from it to emphasise the extreme gravity of the situation.
The report states:
It is no exaggeration to suggest that much of Welsh agriculture will be destroyed within a decade unless urgent action is taken to reverse the decline.
It also says:
The collapse of Welsh family farming would be a disaster for Wales as a whole—culturally, environmentally and socially, as well as economically.
Thirdly, it states:
unless immediate action is taken to assist farmers, there will not be a livestock industry in Wales left to develop.
There will be nothing left to build on, to change or to make more competitive—to use the language that has been used commonly tonight. I hope that the Government note carefully what the report says and recognise that their credibility is on the line in Wales. They need to think hard about that.
The Welsh view of CAP reform is, in many ways, different from the positions of the UK Government, of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and of the Select Committee report. There are two points. First, there is the idea that too much is being spent on agricultural support in Europe. Less than 1 per cent. of European GDP is being spent. If much of that is being spent inefficiently and untargeted—as it is—and on persuading rich farmers not to grow corn, that is unacceptable and must be changed. We agree that there must be radical reform. If that sum were spent to guarantee food security by maintaining Europe's capacity to be self-sufficient in food, which is an issue for the longer term, to provide wholesome food and high animal welfare standards, to maintain the natural environment, the landscape and the richness of natural habitats and biodiversity, and to strengthen rural communities and create a lively rural economy and culture, it would be well spent. That range of benefits, for both rural and urban dwellers, is well worth paying substantially for. It would be irresponsible not to pay substantial sums for such benefits.
Secondly, the Welsh view of modulation is different from that expressed in many quarters tonight. The Farmers Union of Wales supports the Commission's proposal to vary direct payments according to the amount of labour employed on the farm, on the understanding that moneys released in that way would be allocated within the member state for agri-environmental schemes. Modulation within a member state and according to that state's priorities, but within the framework of common European rules, is an appropriate way to proceed. The


flexibility in the Commission's proposals overcomes the issue of discrepancy in farm sizes between different countries, of which much has been made.
Modulation to strengthen family farms is justified; it is not a way to prop up the weak and uncompetitive, which is the language commonly used. In many ways, small farms are not weak and uncompetitive, and they are certainly not inefficient. Such modulation is justified to maintain adequate human resources in the countryside to deliver the benefits that I have mentioned. I strongly dissent from the view of the Select Committee that modulation based on labour units is contrary to promoting competitiveness.
The documents that we have been given emphasise integrated rural development—linking food production, processing and marketing. That is very much in keeping with the analysis of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report, which emphasises not only the severity of the present crisis, but the opportunities for Welsh agriculture—in common with other sectors of British agriculture—to meet consumer demand for quality, traceability and sustainable methods of production. The right kind of CAP reform, with an attractive agri-environmental scheme, could assist strongly in that.
In the short term, the crucial issue is whether Wales will get what it undoubtedly qualifies for under the European structural funds from 1999 onwards. Objective 1 status for western Wales could deliver as much as £2 billion between 2000 and 2006. That status is absolutely crucial at this time for the viability of our economy and our communities. There is no doubt about the eligibility of the region or the appropriateness of the payment. What has to be decided is whether the British Government are seriously committed to that at this time. On objective 1 status, as in negotiating CAP reform, it is reasonable for us in Wales to expect the Government to represent our views and our interests—along with those of others, of course—and if they fail to do that, they cannot expect to have political support in Wales.

Mr. Steve McCabe: If there is one European policy that is designed to undermine confidence in the European Union, surely it must be the complex, expensive, fraud-ridden and inefficient support systems of the common agricultural policy. That is why the Government are right to press for reform of the CAP.
We have heard a lot about farmers in this debate, but is it not the case that British consumers are the losers under the present policy? Should we not be at least as concerned about them as we are about farmers? Is it not also the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) pointed out, that reform of the CAP is now essential because an expanded European Union simply could not afford it?
As we have heard, the current reform proposals could save British consumers as much as £1 billion a year, and I welcome that. Surely after years of butter mountains and wine lakes, any sane person must welcome a shift from the current system of production-related support. Is it not much better that we move to environmental subsidies, which encourage protection of the land and safety for consumers?
I welcome the idea that member states should be allowed to withhold up to 20 per cent. of payments from farmers who fail to meet proper environmental standards.

I hope, particularly in the light of the BSE scandal, that we might use some of that money to encourage grass-reared beef.
If there is a criticism of the Agenda 2000 proposals, it is that they do not go far enough. We must press for a steady reduction in the level of subsidy paid through the CAP. We must move to income support compatible with the requirements of the World Trade Organisation, which will encourage exports as world markets grow. Of course, no system of support can be totally cost free, but a policy based on lower prices and income support is in the interests of the British consumer.
I am somewhat concerned at the suggestions by Commissioner Fischler that present member countries should continue to receive support, but that new entrants should not. That could lead to the situation in which two farmers grow an identical crop on the same number of hectares, but one receives a subsidy and the other does not. That is a recipe for discord and for continual difficulties as the European Union expands.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) called for more agrimonetary compensation for farmers. I am sure that he knows that 70 per cent. of that money must come from the British taxpayer, which means that we have a choice. We can have more handouts for farmers, but at the expense of pensioners, hospital patients, school children and many other people in our society. Is that what he wants? Is that fair?

Mr. Jack: rose—

Mr. McCabe: I will not give way on this occasion because in a similar debate in 1995, the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
I … have first-hand experience of what it is like to operate in a sector that … has no direct intervention. I know what it is like to live on my wits to serve the needs of customers."—[Official Report, 21 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 237.]
The Conservatives are now calling for compensation for farmers which they never once applied for when they were in government. Should we not also recognise that, far from being hard done by, farmers are receiving £85 million of agrimonetary compensation from the Government and can expect to receive about £3 billion in subsidies this year?
I recognise that some small-scale farmers have problems, but I am simply not convinced that the majority of farmers are that hard done by. They may shout about the strength of the pound now, but did they not enjoy tremendous gains during the early 1990s as CAP payments increased rapidly to compensate for weak sterling? Also, is it not the case that, after 1992, EU farmers continued to receive price compensation even though world grain prices had risen rather than fallen? Is it not also true that the Conservative Government's intervention in the 1992 reforms of the CAP, far from producing a fairer system, allowed a small number of fat cat farmers to receive arable area payments ranging from £500,000 to more than £2 million per year?

Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which that Government set up the milk market, so that dairy processors had a vested interest in driving down the


price of milk, was a recipe for disaster? Thank goodness that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is now looking into that case.

Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Can anyone seriously argue that the behaviour of the previous Government with respect to the CAP benefited the British consumer, either in terms of prices or food safety? Should we not today support the motion and encourage the Government to negotiate a deal that, although it might have some in-built costs at the outset, could lead to a progressive reduction in the overall size of CAP subsidies? Should we not support the Government in seeking a deal that will encourage a simpler and more efficient system, recognise the rights of consumers, help to create a sustainable rural development policy and protect our environment?

Mr. James Paice: First, I must declare an interest as I have a small acreage of land and, therefore, would be affected by Agenda 2000.

Dr. John Cunningham: How many acres?

Mr. Paice: Ten. We must consider the Agenda 2000 proposals against a clear picture of what we expect of British farmers and the British countryside. Do we want British agriculture to become a corporate activity, with no regard to the community or the environment? Or do we, as some do, want not merely to stop the clock but to turn it back and to use public money to support a rural way of life and a rural community in some sort of yokel agriculture, immune to the changing needs of consumers and, inevitably, with a constantly increasing cost to the taxpayer?
Or is there a third way—the Government seek to find one in other ways—of encouraging our farmers to be efficient by removing the constraints on their production, stimulating enterprise and making targeted payments for specific activities, whether they be environmental or social, but payments that are decoupled from production, transparent about their intention and, at the same time, reflect our genuine concern for family farms in our farming communities? In its report of 12 November, the Select Committee on European Legislation asked:
Is the primary purpose of the CAP to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, or as Article 39 of the Treaty says 'to increase agricultural production by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, particularly labour'?
I find it difficult to square that article with some of the proposals before us, especially those for labour unit modulation and the continuation of quotas.
In considering the whole issue of reform, we have to look back to the last round, which became known as the MacSharry reforms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was Minister at that time, fought hard to ensure that British farmers were not disadvantaged by those reforms—indeed, the idea of modulation was proposed then. If the Minister today does half as good a job of defending the interests of Britain's farmers, taxpayers and consumers as did my right hon. Friend, he will do well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke about enlargement and the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. Both expressed concern about whether the Agenda 2000 proposals are enough. It is important that compensation should be degressive, but it is also important to distinguish between payments that are compensation and those that are made for specific activities, whether environmental or anything else. There is clearly considerable confusion, not only inside the House, but in the wider world of agriculture, about those two issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke well about the wider implications of fanning economics and the pressures on farmers' welfare and the welfare of many businesses.
On structural funds, we welcome the clearer rural objective described by Agenda 2000 and the bringing together of measures under one heading. We welcome the fact that money will be shifted from the guarantee part of the budget towards rural development, but, like my hon. Friend the Mid-Worcestershire, we do not believe that the proposals fulfil that laudable objective. There is little doubt that, under the new objective 2, rural areas will receive less money than they currently get under objective 5b; and even the new objective, which is sometimes called objective zero, may not be enough, especially given that less-favoured area payments are to be included. We have reservations about whether the proposals will meet the challenges of the WTO or of other objectives, such as diversification for job creation, which is so important. Those elements of the package are necessary if we are to create opportunities for farmers to earn income from non-farming activities.
The issue is not only one of resources; it involves the attitude of the many officials whom farmers encounter and who affect their businesses. The officials responsible for planning and for the many different regulations, such as those on health and safety, have to understand that the development of a different enterprise may mean the difference between survival or bankruptcy.
I ask the Government to examine the issue of business rates, because, if they want to stimulate enterprise in rural areas, they have to look at the way in which, as soon as a farmer develops an enterprise that is not classified as pure agriculture, he immediately gets clouted by business rates. Even providing a few stables can lead to a huge rates bill. It was the previous Conservative Government who introduced the rate relief for village shops, for which the current Government sought to obtain the credit. Has not the time come to consider applying that principle more widely to help farmers?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the Opposition are not calling for huge increases in public expenditure—indeed, one of our criticisms of Agenda 2000 is that it does not reduce the cost to the taxpayer. We believe that the Government have a duty to help farmers to adjust to the new world. Small sums of money to help new marketing initiatives, or an increase in research into non-food uses of crops, or, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, developing and identifying those areas where we can compete more effectively in a free market could help that adjustment.
Will the Minister tell us how we will address the issue of cross-compliance and environmental assistance? Do the Government support the principle of cross-compliance? Will he assure the House that, as the House of Lords report said, any aid for environmental measures should be available for all farmers, including those in the fens of East Anglia, which I partly represent? Does he agree with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said:
There is no clear connection between economic or physical size of a farm and its environmental sensitivity"?
There are many examples of large farms that achieve significant environmental benefits along with efficient farming. However, as any farmer knows, conservation costs money. Loss of income and land area, and development and maintenance costs can be justified only against a profitable farming enterprise, or by specific targeted payments.
Some hon. Members referred to removing support from agriculture, but it is important to differentiate agriculture from all other industries, simply because it is British farmers who manage about 75 per cent. of the land area of this country. Our landscape has been fashioned by agriculture over the millennia, and our people value it as a leisure resource. It is a matter of regret that the Government did not take the opportunity of the debate to lay out their views on the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom. We have heard a little of their views, and we agree with and will support some of them, especially their opposition to the capping of support for individual farms. However, we heard nothing about a vision for agriculture.
Farmers in this country do not want handouts and do not want to be seen as seeking handouts. They repeatedly tell me that they want fair treatment compared with farmers in other countries whose products are coming into this country and with whom they have to compete. Do the Government want no public money to be spent on agriculture? What is the Government's policy toward marginal areas of the country? Do they want vast areas of marginal land to revert to wasteland and moorland and the communities of people living there to fade and die? Do they have a vision for revitalising those rural communities with new policies and continuing public support to keep people living in those fragile areas and to maintain the landscape that millions of people value?
We have not been told the Government's policy towards the idea of labour unit-based modulation within a national envelope—indeed, the Ministers remarks on that issue were somewhat vague. Nor have we heard about their view on livestock quotas, although I hope that the Minister will adopt the same view on those as on milk quotas. The Minister has proclaimed that he will not accept any policy that discriminates against British farmers, yet, on 22 December, he stated that in future there would be fewer producers, but a more viable beef industry in the United Kingdom. Beef farmers throughout the country now believe that they are to be sacrificed by the Government to reduce the supply of beef; but reducing the number of producers does not necessarily reduce production.
We have had a good debate, even though the Labour party has yet again paraded its belief that it represents rural areas. If Labour represents the countryside, why has not a single one of the 180-odd new Labour Members of Parliament registered agriculture as a special interest?

That demonstrates the paucity of Labour's argument and the tragedy facing the British countryside, which is now governed by an urban party.
Conservative Members believe that agriculture has a strong and prosperous future, operating in a marketplace, producing what the customer wants and playing a major role in rural communities and the rural economy. The Agenda 2000 proposals will have to be changed significantly if they are to help, rather than hinder, British agriculture's efforts to face up to the future. They go a certain distance in the right direction, but I ask the Government to be resolute in ensuring that Britain's farmers, taxpayers and consumers are properly defended.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): By and large, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made an excellent speech. [Interruption.] I mean that. It was extremely thoughtful, especially at the start. Admittedly, later we got to the third way, but we could wholly agree with the requirements that he set out. I was not so sure that I could agree with him when he got on to the subject of rates, which has long been contentious. I remind him that agricultural land is not rated—an exemption which, one assumes, no one has ever costed. Nevertheless, it was an excellent speech.
That speech was in marked contrast to the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but we all know that today he was the prize in a magazine contest. That was the result of his speech today. There was a litany of questions. Did anyone read last week's competition in Farmers Weekly? The winner of the competition received a speech from the right hon. Gentleman. He was first prize in a competition. It was not a fairly structured speech. The second prize would have been a winding-up speech by the right hon. Gentleman.
It has been an interesting debate. The occupants of the two Front Benches are not responsible for the time constraints—the usual channels and business managers agreed them—but we have had a fascinating debate. At one time, four hon. Members representing Shropshire were on their feet at once—two from each side of the House. At another time, no fewer than four hon. Members representing Cumbria were on their feet at once—two from each side of the House. Obviously, the idea that there is a monopoly of provision for, and representation of, rural areas is nonsense. That was the only remark by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to which I took exception.
On Tuesday night—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary, were there—there was hardly any room in the Committee Room when we met the rural group of Labour Members of Parliament. The Room was packed to the gunwales with people with an interest in the rural economy, who believe that the rural economy extends beyond agriculture. That is a key factor.
Many hon. Members have made important points tonight. I shall try to respond to some of them, but it would be impossible to cover them all. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) kicked off by drawing attention to overgrazing on the fells. That behaviour contrasts with that of the people who, over the


millennia, have left us a massive, beautiful landscape, apparently managed and cultured to great success. As my hon. Friend said, obviously that is not the case throughout the country.
My hon. Friend was also the first person to raise the issue of animal welfare. It is impossible to divorce the issues of the CAP and its reform from the incredibly important but narrow issues of simple price support—including animal welfare issues.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) demanded to know—unfairly, I thought—the decisions taken at the informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers at Newcastle last week, where, by definition, no decisions are reached. Like him, we do not, as a matter of policy, want a diminution of family farms—which is the way that some people would wish to drive it. He also, very fairly, pointed out that not all problems started in May 1997. We accept that farmers are going through a difficult time, but one must be absolutely realistic about the history of the problems that confront us today.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made a measured speech—in contrast to the bawling and shouting. He rightly pointed out that farmers were affected more than most by the strength of the pound because they were affected earlier than anyone else. I would be the first to say that all manufacturing industry is affected—I know that from constituency experience in Birmingham—but farmers are affected first, because of the operation of the green pound.
If I were to reply to all the points made in the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) I would take up all the remaining time, because they raised important issues on a range of CAP policy issues, including the cattle-tracing system, about which I shall say a few words. My hon. Friend said that we need to look at rural affairs in the round, not only from an agricultural perspective but from an environmental and social one.
I was on a farm yesterday—and indeed last week—and met not just farmers and country landowners, but those involved in the wider rural economy. My fellow Ministers and I visit farms regularly. We are in contact with, and listen to, people at the sharp end, not just in our Whitehall offices. We are very conscious that those people are keen to discuss wider rural affairs, not just the narrow agricultural aspects.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, referred to the valuable report that had been produced. This is not a love-in. The Government were able to respond because the Committee had produced a report that we did not wholly support but which was a credit to the Select Committee system. That is not to say that the Committee will produce such a good report every time, but it was a valuable contribution. I wish that forced reading of that report had been a requirement for speaking in the debate.
Many hon. Members mentioned the cattle industry, especially regarding the beef ban. The myth persists that this Government are responsible for the beef ban. We are responsible for legislating it, because the previous Government forgot to do so. There are aspects of the beef industry, however, to which we must pay special

attention, because any problem in our food industry, especially the beef industry, affects our capability to negotiate our way out of the ban.
Confidence in food is affected in many ways. In negotiating our way out of the ban, we have been affected by questions of quality in the slaughter industry and meat-cutting plants. We now have higher levels of inspection by the Meat Hygiene Service, and that confidence must be communicated to the European regulators. In addition, we now publish the hygiene scores of more than 1,000 red and white meat slaughterhouses.
The staff on that vital inspection work do it on behalf of the public as well as the industry, but I regret that there are continued instances of intimidation of meat hygiene staff to prevent them from carrying out their duties to protect public health. We—I hope that I speak for the whole House—will not tolerate the intimidation of veterinary surgeons and meat hygiene inspectors, carrying out their work in the slaughterhouses of this country.
We recently had the first successful prosecution for intimidation and assault on an official veterinary surgeon, carried out by Mr. R.B. Crowther at the plant of D.S. Cooper of Shelley Bank abattoir in Huddersfield against a female official veterinary surgeon in pursuance of her duties. We shall expose and prosecute on every possible occasion when intimidation of the people doing those jobs, in defence of the beef industry and food safety, is brought to the notice of the authorities. I give that pledge on behalf of—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [18 May].

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 230.

Division No. 285]
[7.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Evans, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Fallon, Michael


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Blunt, Crispin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burnett, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Burns, Simon
Gorrie, Donald


Burstow, Paul
Gray, James


Butterfill, John
Green, Damian


Cash, William
Greenway, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Grieve, Dominic



Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chidgey, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Harvey, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Collins, Tim
Hayes, John


Colvin, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cotter, Brian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, Rt Hon David
Horam, John






Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rendel, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Ruffley, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jenkin, Bernard
St Aubyn, Nick


Keetch, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Soames, Nicholas


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Letwin, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Streeter, Gary


Lidington, David
Swayne, Desmond


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Syms, Robert


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Loughton, Tim
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Luff, Peter
Townend, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Wallace, James


Malins, Humfrey
Walter, Robert


Maples, John
Wardle, Charles


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Waterson, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wells, Bowen


Moore, Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Willetts, David


Oaten, Mark
Willis, Phil


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Woodward, Shaun


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Paterson, Owen



Prior, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, John
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alexander, Douglas
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Caplin, Ivor


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chaytor, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Austin, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Crausby, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradshaw, Ben
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)




Dafis, Cynog


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)





Dawson, Hilton
Lock, David


Denham, John
Love, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Doran, Frank
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Drew, David
McDonagh, Siobhain


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonnell, John


Edwards, Huw
Mackinlay, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McNamara, Kevin


Ellman, Mrs Louise
MacShane, Denis


Ennis, Jeff
Mactaggart, Fiona


Etherington, Bill
McWalter, Tony


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mallaber, Judy


Fisher, Mark
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Flint, Caroline
Martlew, Eric


Follett, Barbara
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
Mitchell, Austin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Moffatt, Laura


Gerrard, Neil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gibson, Dr Ian
Motley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Norris, Dan


Grogan, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hanson, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Healey, John
Pearson, Ian


Hepburn, Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L


Hesford, Stephen
Plaskitt, James


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pollard, Kerry


Hill, Keith
Pond, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Hope, Phil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr Kim
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Rammell, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jenkins, Brian
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salter, Martin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sawford, Phil


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Sheerman, Barry


Kemp, Fraser
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Singh, Marsha


Khabra, Piara S
Skinner, Dennis


Kidney, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Laxton, Bob



Lepper, David
Snape, Peter


Leslie, Christopher
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Spellar, John


Linton, Martin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Livingstone, Ken
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Steinberg, Gerry






Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Swinney, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Todd, Mark
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Vis, Dr Rudi
Janet Anderson and


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/98 relating to reform of the Common Market Organisations for beef, cereals and milk and for the development of rural development policy in the European Union, and the Second Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, `CAP Reform: Agenda 2000' (HC 311) and the Government response thereto (HC 719); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the UK's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium-term prospect of benefits to developing countries.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS

That the draft Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998 be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 100.

Division No. 286]
[8.14 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Alexander, Douglas



Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Byers, Stephen


Austin, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chaytor, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chidgey, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Colman, Tony


Bradshaw, Ben
Cooper, Yvette





Corbyn, Jeremy
Kidney, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cotter, Brian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Crausby, David
Kingham, Ms Tess


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Laxton, Bob


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Darvill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lock, David


Dawson, Hilton
Love, Andrew


Denham, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobbin, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Doran, Frank
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Dowd, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Drew, David
McDonnell, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Edwards, Huw
McNamara, Kevin


Efford, Clive
MacShane, Denis


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mactaggart, Fiona


Ennis, Jeff
McWalter, Tony


Etherington, Bill
Mallaber, Judy


Fisher, Mark
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Follett, Barbara
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michael, Alun


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Gardiner, Barry
Miller, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Moffatt, Laura


Gerrard, Neil
Moore, Michael


Gibson, Dr Ian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mudie, George


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Norris, Dan


Gorrie, Donald
Oaten, Mark


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Grogan, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pearson, Ian


Hanson, David
Pendry, Tom


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Pike, Peter L


Hepburn, Stephen
Plaskitt, James


Heppell, John
Pollard, Kerry


Hesford, Stephen
Pond, Chris


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Hope, Phil
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr Kim
Rammell, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hutton, John
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Rendel, David


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Jenkins, Brian
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Rooker, Jeff


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Salter, Martin


Keetch, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Sawford, Phil


Kemp, Fraser
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Singh, Marsha


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Skinner, Dennis


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Wallace, James


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Spellar, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Willis Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wood, Mike


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tellers for the Ayes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. David Jamieson and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Janet Anderson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Lansley, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Leigh, Edward


Arbuthnot, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Madel, Sir David


Butterfill, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



Norman, Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight Howard
Soames, Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Streeter, Gary



Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Syms, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Townend, John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Tredinnick, David


Gray, James
Trend, Michael


Green, Damian
Tyrie, Andrew


Greenway, John
Viggers, Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Hayes, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Horam, John
Whittingdale, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Arnos Vale Cemetery

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Ms Jean Corston: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the future of Arnos Vale cemetery in my constituency. It was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1837, and is—and has always been—owned by the Bristol General Cemetery Company. It comprises 45 acres in the city, was planned as a Greek necropolis, and has been described as an Arcadian garden. It is of unique ecological importance, in that it has changed from being mediaeval countryside to a Georgian estate to a Victorian cemetery without the use of chemical pesticides or insecticides.
The cemetery provides a fascinating insight into the history of Bristol, as it contains the graves of the Victorian well-to-do, a survivor of the charge of the Light Brigade, a police officer who was murdered in Old Market while trying to intervene in a fight over the ill treatment of a donkey, and the notorious Mary "Princess Cariboo" Baker, who managed to persuade the squire of Almondsbury that she was an eastern princess.
There are also the unmarked mounds of the common graves of the Victorian poor and the markers of the "guinea" graves of those whose friends and relatives had managed to put up the required 21 shillings and so avoid a pauper's funeral. There are many Commonwealth war graves, and last—but by no means least—the mausoleum of Raja Rammohun Roy, who is internationally revered as a humanist and social reformer, and whose statue stands outside the Council House in Bristol.
The income of the cemetery obviously declined as it filled up, and the costs of upkeep rose as burials continued to the present day. In 1987, Mr. Tony Towner took over as the new owner, and he and his wife became the principal shareholders in the Bristol General Cemetery Company. He made no secret of the fact that he was effectively given the cemetery in lieu of a professional debt. Mr. Towner is a barrister.
After my election in 1992, Mr. Towner contacted me to discuss the state of the cemetery. Such was my concern that, on 6 December 1992, I convened a meeting at the Council House in Bristol, which I chaired. It was attended by representatives of Bristol city council, Mr. and Mrs. Towner, the Victorian Society and representatives of the Association for the Preservation of Arnos Vale Cemetery, known as APAC. We discussed all the issues that arose from the private ownership of the cemetery, which was facing decline. At that stage, there was already considerable dereliction in the cemetery.
There was a further meeting on 12 February 1993, which I also chaired, when we discussed issues relating to the records of the cemetery, because Mr. Towner had made it clear that he did not think that they were safe as the property was subject to vandalism. An offer was made to microfiche or film the cemetery records, and it was made clear that the cost would not be borne by the cemetery company. However, there was no co-operation from Mr. Towner, not just on this issue but on any other issue raised at the meeting in December 1992. I found that puzzling, in view of the fact that he had approached me to help resolve the issue.
As to APAC, which is now known as the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, I must say that I have never come across a more responsible and committed group of individuals. I believe that they have only the upkeep and the best interests of the cemetery at heart. They offered to provide a cut-and-clear service for the cemetery and, after Mr. Towner objected to insurance indemnity, had discussions with the National Federation of Cemetery Friends and agreed to provide their own insurance cover for any accident or mishap arising from their activities.
Their reward was rudeness, intimidation and repeated threats of legal action—once when the then chairman was recovering from a serious illness—from Mr. Towner and his solicitors. I also have copies of threatening and intimidating letters from Mr. Towner to constituents who expressed distress at the state of the cemetery.
I referred to the Raja Rammohun Roy. He has a unique importance for the Indian community, in the United Kingdom and world wide. A centre promoting his work is located in Delhi. The High Commission has made strenuous efforts over many years to restore the mausoleum. There are regular pilgrimages to the cemetery, and one visit every year—which is usually attended by the high commissioner—to mark the date of the Raja's death.
The high commissioner has been locked out on that day at least once. The spectacle of a representative of a friendly country and fellow member of the Commonwealth visiting this country, only to be locked out of the premises to which he had asked for access, and having to leave flowers at the gate, was disgraceful. There was a gross discourtesy, and, to its credit, the high commission is still patiently trying to resolve the issue.
The site is also unique in heritage terms, which is where its future lies. A letter to me from English Heritage on 14 January 1993 states:
Cemetery contains 16 listed structures of which the 1830's Bath Road entrance lodges, gates and screen walls, 2 mortuary chapels of 1840 and retrospective commemoration of Raja Rammohun of 1843 are all listed Grade II*; the Cemetery Road gates, 1914–18 war memorial, 1866 obelisk and five further memorials are listed Grade II. All these structures have been on the statutory list for at least 30 years.
On 19 May, the 1998 buildings-at-risk register listed the entrance lodge gates and mortuary chapel of Arnos Vale cemetery.
Mr. Towner's failure to disclose his financial situation meant that it was difficult for English Heritage to give grant, because he could not demonstrate need for financial assistance. He knew that in 1992. The south-west team of English Heritage made it clear that there was no possibility of a grant to him, that he was unable to accept the grant conditions, and that it would not communicate further with him on the matter. I formed the view then that a trust for the people of Bristol was the only answer.
Bristol city council's responsibility has generally been confined to environmental matters, principally the crematorium. It was built in 1928, when cremation was not common. Mr. Towner's accusation that the council built crematoria to put Arnos Vale out of business is manifestly absurd. Canford crematorium opened in 1957, and Bedminster Down in 1971, as cremation became more acceptable and popular. That was long before Mr. Towner

knew where Arnos Vale was. He took it over in the full knowledge that there were local authority crematoria in Bristol.
Arnos Vale crematorium is at the end of its useful life. Bristol city council has served notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, ordering the company to meet certain conditions and bring the crematorium up to standard. Mr. Towner appealed against a previous notice, and I was astonished when he succeeded. He was given until 31 March 1998 to bring the crematorium up to the standards laid down by the 1990 Act.
I do not often read the Investors' Chronicle, but I am pleased that I read the 7 January 1994 issue, because I saw an advertisement for "Arnos Village Cemetery Operator". It continued:
Arnos owns and operates a 45-acre cemetery in Bristol less than half a mile from Temple Meads station. It has retained Hambros to advise it on developing up to 30 acres of the site. If negotiations over the new Bristol City development plan go well, Arnos calculates that up to 400 houses could be built on land where graves have been moved. Meanwhile it looks an attractive shell.
It is important to remember the case of the Westminster cemeteries. In January 1987, three were sold by Westminster borough council for 15p—or 5p each. The cemeteries—at Mill Hill, East Finchley and Hanwell—were outside the boundaries of Westminster borough, and so were thought to be a waste of Westminster ratepayers' money. According to Lady Porter, in an Evening Standard article on 8 March 1989, the cemeteries were offered to the appropriate local authorities for nothing and were refused, so it was decided to sell them to eliminate the £300,000 a year maintenance costs. Valuable land was also given away with the cemeteries—12 acres at Mill Hill. The purchaser, who paid 15p, sold them on for £1.25 million.
When I saw the advertisement, I immediately contacted Bristol city council. I am pleased that the result was that conservation area status was conferred by the council in July 1996. In a way, that made sense of the previous few years and of Mr. Towner's refusal to co-operate in guaranteeing the future of Arnos Vale. My opinion is that his objective was always to sell the site for development.
Matters came to a head earlier this year, with a newsletter from the company headed: "Exhumation—a sad necessity?" It says:
An uncertain future for our famous Arnos Vale Cemetery now needs you to consider how best to continue your respect for your relatives and loved ones graves.
If the grave of your loved one or friend is in the top part stretching between the Cemetery Road gates and the Park where the distress and dereliction is at its greatest (and will be unaffected by Heritage funded improvements to the original Arcadian Gardens) you may wish to consider exhuming the remains for re-burial in the original Victorian Arcadian Gardens (which whatever happens must surely be preserved) near the chapels or for cremation with the ashes to be buried in a cremation plot in the same area, or to be scattered here, or if you wish, to be re-interred in another cemetery of your choice.
How has this come about?
One simple answer—No money.
Why not?
Two main reasons—competition for cremations from Council owned crematoria installed despite our company having sufficient capacity, at that time, for the whole of Bristol and the costs of compliance with environmental legislation.


The newsletter invites readers to apply for an
information pack on the future of Arnos Vale and how exhumations are arranged.
I immediately contacted the Home Office, and asked that no decision be taken on the granting of licences for exhumation.
That notice must be unprecedented, and the public reaction was what any right-minded person would expect: extreme distress, revulsion and anger. The culmination was Mr. Towner's announcement that he was closing the cemetery permanently, as from 31 March 1998. I cannot describe the grief and distress that that caused, but the people of Bristol decided they would have none of it. They took over, drew up a rota for locking and unlocking the gates, and set about a clean-up. The cemetery looks better than it has for years. Mr. Towner's reaction was to call those people "vigilantes", who were involved in "mob-rule", in a letter to me. I can only describe the use of such language in respect of bereaved people as despicable.
The Bristol Evening Post has helped to keep up the pressure, with coverage virtually every day. There are now 1,500 people in its Arnos Vale army. That coverage has been vital in keeping the issue at the forefront of public attention.
Bristol's planning, transport and development committee considered Arnos Vale cemetery at its meeting on 23 April 1998. It welcomed the report, and agreed that a regeneration study, looking at the historic buildings, landscape and future management of the cemetery, should be commissioned. Subsequently, the policy and resources committee agreed to underwrite the cost of the study, until money becomes available.
The regeneration study is expected to cost about £40,000. The council hopes to set up a joint project, funded by English Partnerships, English Heritage and the Bristol Preservation Trust. A brief for the study is being put together, and it is hoped that it will be commissioned in June and that there will be a report in September. The council is about to write to Mr. Towner, requesting urgent works to listed buildings. If he fails to carry them out, the city council will undertake them and put a charge on the property. A petition of about 18,000 signatures will be submitted to the city council any day now.
The leisure services committee is satisfied that the quality landscape is being well cared for by volunteers, and it looks forward to a landscape plan as part of the regeneration study. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took on landscape maintenance around its graves.
There are marvellous opportunities for community involvement in regeneration and to tie in with Government projects, such as the environmental task force. There is also the possibility of a local employment and training project for work on walls and buildings, as well as landscape maintenance and enhancement. The site may be beneficially used as a local social history resource outlet for schoolchildren and others who are interested in local history.
Mr. Towner charges £25 for every letter or fax that he sends in connection with funerals, and £15 for each phone call. A private burial takes three weeks to set up, and that was described by a Bristol undertaker as "extortionate and without justification."
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will reply to the debate, and I call upon him to use any powers that are open to his Department to secure the cemetery as a precious asset to our heritage and as a haven for remembrance, contemplation and conservation. I understand that his Department has reserved powers to serve a repair notice on a site owner specifying work that is to be carried out, but that those powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot think of any circumstances that are more exceptional than these.
There are other issues, such as the granting of exhumation licences by the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak about the Home Office's response. There is also the issue of the way in which exhumation licences are granted. I agree with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that licences should be granted only if there is "an overriding public necessity."
My central argument is that no one should be allowed to profit from the bones of the dead or from the bereavement or remembrance of the living. Mr. Towner may have been able to play cat and mouse with me and with Bristol city council, the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, the Indian high commission and English Heritage, but he did not reckon with the force of public opinion in Bristol. He should accept that there is no future for Arnos Vale as a business, and that his procrastination has brought disrepute to the city of Bristol and distress to people whose only concern is to provide a fit and proper resting place for loved ones and ancestors. If he is not prepared to co-operate in the setting up a trust for the people of Bristol, he should go back to Oxford, and let us get on with it.

Valerie Davey: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has said, and I echo her concern for the people of Bristol and those further afield who, in their distress, have been writing to us. Tomorrow is the 226th anniversary of the birth of Raja Rammohun Roy, the Indian philosopher, and in his memory, people may wish to visit the cemetery. However, every day is an anniversary to some family who have loved ones in that cemetery. Every day draws people not just from the Bristol area, but from much further afield, because there are 40,000 graves in that cemetery.
We are debating a human tragedy, and the dignity with which the people of Bristol have responded is to their great credit. We seek the Government's help in redressing the despicable situation of one person trying to make a profit at the expense of the majority of people in that area who wish to maintain the cemetery. They display great dignity, and bring to bear a great deal of endeavour and hard work. I trust that the Minister can offer some help in that endeavour.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): It seems that this is my week for Adjournment debates. The one last night was about church bells, and I suppose tonight's debate is about those for whom the bells have already tolled.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on drawing this important matter to the House's attention.


I listened carefully to the concerns about the future of Arnos Vale cemetery, and I can understand why the matter has aroused anger, not only in Bristol but further afield. The Government understand those concerns, and wish to secure the future of this important and historic cemetery. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends that initiatives are in hand to do that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was laid out in 1836 to 1840 with buildings by Charles Underwood, who was Bristol's leading neo-classical architect of the early 19th century. It is a fine and early example of what was a new concept in cemetery design, and it was influenced by the great pictures of 18th-century landscape gardens and the romantic ideals of the time. Its historic importance has been recognised in many ways.
In 1996, the efforts of my hon. Friend led to Bristol city council including the cemetery within the Arnos Vale conservation area. Such areas are of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. They are designated by local planning authorities in the light of their local knowledge.
More recently, the cemetery has been listed grade II in English Heritage's "Register of Historic Parks and Gardens". In addition, the cemetery contains 14 grade II and grade II* listed buildings. As we have heard, they include the grade II* tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy, who died in Bristol in 1833. He is described by the Indian high commissioner
as one of the most significant figures in the social, cultural and intellectual history of India during the last two hundred years.
The tomb is regarded as a shrine for all Indians, and I was appalled to hear from my hon. Friend that, in the past, pilgrims to the tomb were locked out. That is a disgrace, and one can only apologise to the Indian Government and to the followers of Raja Rammohun Roy for that insult. His tomb, like some other unlisted and listed buildings in the cemetery, is in poor condition.
The Indian high commissioner met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to express his concern that the tomb may deteriorate beyond rescue, and be lost for good. He is also worried about access to the tomb for pilgrims who come to pay their respects. High commission officials have discussed those problems with Mr. Towner of the Bristol General Cemetery Company, which owns the cemetery. However, I am afraid that the parties have so far been unable to agree on how the matter should be resolved. That seems to be a common story when one tries to make arrangements with Mr. Towner.
In many ways, the problems surrounding the tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy encapsulate the difficulties that face the cemetery as a whole. Many of the tombs and vaults are in a dangerous condition, due to neglect by those who own them, and the grounds have become dangerous, raising public liability issues. The entrance lodge and gates and the mortuary chapel, which is listed grade II* are in the highest category of risk in English Heritage's new "Register of Buildings At Risk" which was published on Tuesday.
I understand that the long-term financial viability of the cemetery company to manage the cemetery effectively and safely has been in doubt for some years because of

declining revenues from burials and cremations. In addition, we understand that the company's crematorium has been closed because of insufficient funds to upgrade the cremators as required to ensure compliance with environmental protection legislation.
Understandably, these matters have raised widespread local concern that the cemetery may be forced to close. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was closed for a time last month, but public pressure forced the company to reopen it.
The attitude of Mr. Towner was mentioned several times by my hon. Friend. I noted her criticism of the way in which he manages the cemetery, and the difficulties that the city council, local residents and others have had in trying to discuss with him how to secure the cemetery's long-term future. I well understand local anger. The recent history of cemeteries being sold off or passed on to unsuitable persons is sad and depressing. We all remember well the scandal of the Westminster cemetery sale.
I should make it clear that English Heritage has always stood ready to consider any request for grant aid support in respect of listed buildings in the cemetery, and remains willing to do so. I confirm that it remains ready to consider assisting the city council with both professional advice and grant aid in the event that the city council decides to use its statutory powers for listed buildings in disrepair.
It may be helpful at this point if I outline legislative provisions that may have some relevance in respect of the cemetery. On guaranteed access to the cemetery, little can be done. As my hon. Friend has said, Arnos Vale is a private cemetery, established by a private Act of Parliament of 1837 and run by a private company. Beyond what is contained in that and subsequent private Acts relating to the cemetery, the activities of the Bristol General Cemetery Company are not subject to regulation. Other than in relation to any requirements of the Burial and Cremation Acts, and to limited Home Office powers of intervention, the company is largely free to conduct its business on its terms.
Nevertheless, the company will have a contractual relationship with people who have bought burial rights in the cemetery, and any infringement of the rights thus acquired will be subject to the provisions of civil law. Individual families with concerns about their burial rights may wish to consider taking legal advice.
I said that the Home Office had limited powers of intervention. It has an interest in ensuring that any relevant regulations relating to burial grounds are observed, and that such grounds are not allowed to become a health risk or to offend public decency. To that end, it has powers to undertake inspections of all burial grounds. In extreme cases, it is open to the Home Office to seek an Order in Council to require certain works to be carried out, or to close the site to further burials.
I can inform the House that the Home Office is considering whether it would be helpful and appropriate to undertake an inspection of the cemetery. My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has arranged to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and how far the Home Office may be able to help.
The legal powers relating to the protection of listed buildings are set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The primary responsibility


for the upkeep of a listed building rests with the owner, but sanctions can be imposed by the local planning authority when a listed building is in a poor state of repair. In the case of Arnos Vale, ownership of listed tombs and other buildings will rest with either the cemetery owner or private individuals.
Where the authority considers that a listed building is in need of repair, it can serve a repairs notice on the owner, specifying the works that are considered necessary for the building's preservation. If no action is taken in response to the notice, the authority can begin compulsory purchase proceedings. In addition, in the case of an unoccupied listed building, a local authority can serve an urgent works notice requiring the owner to carry out emergency repairs. If the owner fails to carry out the works, the authority can do so, and recover expenses from the owner.
The legislation also gives the Secretary of State powers that are broadly similar to those of local authorities. However, it is the Government's policy to treat them as reserve powers for use only in exceptional circumstances. I assure my hon. Friends that we will use the powers if we have to.
I understand that Bristol city council has considered serving an urgent works notice on the Bristol General Cemetery Company in respect of the listed buildings in disrepair for which the company is responsible. However, the city council has been reluctant to take that step, because of the potential costs. It considers that the company is not in a position to reimburse the council for the costs of any urgent works that are undertaken. That option remains open, and, if pursued, it may be possible for English Heritage to underwrite some of the risk as part of its buildings-at-risk programme. That programme includes advice to local authorities on how they can use their statutory powers effectively.
Following his meeting with the Indian high commissioner, the Secretary of State asked English Heritage to produce a report on the condition of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb. It has become clear, however, that that particular matter needs to be looked at in the context of wider issues concerning the present state and future options of the cemetery as a whole. The English Heritage report will therefore now look at all those issues. That is a sensible step, because individual problems of access, maintenance responsibility and public safety are closely interlinked, and cannot be dealt with in isolation. Any solutions to them must fit in as part of an overall package.
English Heritage is still producing its report, but I am pleased to say that it has indicated to us that good progress has already been made in dealing with a number of issues. It has held meetings with all interested parties, including Mr. Towner, and has discovered that the parties share a lot of common ground. As a result, it has agreed that a sensible first step would be to commission a conservation and regeneration study into the cemetery's future. That will include an appraisal of its heritage assets, its role as a local amenity and preparation of a business plan.
Clearly, any business plan will need to address several options. For example, I understand that there may be scope for some limited development, combined with increased public access to the open spaces, restoration and regeneration of the historic core of the cemetery—perhaps by a trust—and the retention of part as an active cemetery for conventional burials. A number of buildings on the site have viable reuse potential.
Bristol city council is prepared to underwrite part of the conservation and regeneration study, and other potential funding partners, both public and private, have declared a readiness to support that. English Heritage is also considering what financial support it can offer. The Indian high commission has also informally offered help in the restoration of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb.
I know that the Heritage Lottery Fund has been approached by the city council to support the conservation and regeneration study. The fund has made it clear, however, that it normally requires applications to be made by the eligible owner. I hope that, in the light of recent developments, the company will be persuaded to co-operate with the city council to allow a proper application to be considered as quickly as possible.
However, the fund has assured me that it is aware of the urgency surrounding the case, and it is meeting shortly officials from the city council to review matters. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the Government have no role in the decision-making process of lottery applications. Decisions are made independently of Government by the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the body which is responsible for the Heritage Lottery Fund.
As a next step, English Heritage envisages that a wider meeting should be held, involving itself, the company, potential trust members, local politicians, officials from the city council and my Department and other agencies. It is hoped that such a meeting will be arranged in late June or July, and will reach agreement on the steps to be taken. English Heritage will then present its report and recommendations, which it is hoped will have the full support of all interested parties.
If agreement is reached on the way forward, the wider public will be consulted on what is being proposed. With good will and co-operation from all parties involved, it should be possible to agree a workable solution, which will not only regenerate the cemetery as a local amenity, but develop it into something that has a viable future. However, if it is not possible to reach agreement, the statutory procedures that I have referred to can be implemented.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that she is able to take some reassurance from my comments. I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that I hope that the discussions that are taking place will result in the long-term future of Arnos Vale cemetery being secured. The people of Bristol have a right to expect nothing less.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Nine o'clock.